Non-Compliance With Rule 14 Of NDPS Rules 2022 Regarding Quantitative Test Vitiates Prosecution Case And Renders Detention Illegal: Allahabad High Court Supreme Court Directs Systematic Audit And Institutional Accountability For Safety In Public Spaces Under Article 21 Extra-Judicial Confession Made Before Police Cannot Solely Sustain Preventive Detention: Supreme Court Pre-Trial Incarceration Cannot Masquerade As Punitive Detention When Trial Is Not Imminent: Supreme Court Land Acquisition | Radial ‘Hub-And-Spoke’ Valuation Models For Contiguous Lands Are Legally Unsustainable: Supreme Court Forfeiture Of Earnest Money Deposit Is A Valid Consequence Upon Failure To Pay Balance Sale Consideration Under IBC Liquidation Process: Supreme Court Res Judicata | Suit For Specific Performance Barred If Relief Was Available In Prior Suit For Permanent Injunction And Not Claimed: Supreme Court RERA | Allottee’s Right To Seek Refund Is Absolute And Unqualified, Not Subject To Promoter’s Completion Of Project: Bombay High Court Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC | Appellate Court Cannot Summarily Reject Addition Of Legal Heirs Based On Unproven Documents Without Reason: Calcutta High Court Order XIV Rule 5 CPC | Trial Court Must Frame Additional Issues Based On Liberty Granted By Supreme Court To Ensure Just Adjudication: Delhi High Court Mere Citation Of Wrong Provision Does Not Invalidate Order If Court Possessed Jurisdiction: Gujarat High Court Injunction Under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC Cannot Be Granted Over Large Unidentified Tract Of Land Without Establishing Prima Facie Case: Himachal Pradesh High Court Section 125 CrPC | Mere Rejection Of Permanent Alimony Plea In Divorce Proceedings Does Not Bar Claim For Maintenance: Karnataka High Court Section 311 BNSS | Trial Court Has Discretion To Record Evidence In Narrative Form; Accused Cannot Insist On Question-Answer Format: Kerala High Court Section 482 CrPC | Principle Of Parity Cannot Be Invoked To Quash FIR If Allegations Against Accused Are Distinct And Substantiated: Madhya Pradesh High Court Motor Vehicles Act | Tribunal Cannot Grant 'Right Of Recovery' To Insurer Without Evidence Of Policy Violation: Orissa High Court Mere Inadequacy Of Consideration Or Illiteracy Does Not Vitiate Specific Performance Unless Exploitation Is Proved: Madras High Court Contempt Jurisdiction Cannot Be Converted Into Parallel Forum To Enforce Civil Decrees: Punjab & Haryana High Court Order 18 Rule 17 CPC | Reopening Evidence At The Stage Of Arguments Without Compelling Grounds Amounts To Abuse Of Process: Telangana High Court Cannot Circumvent Bail Granted By Supreme Court: Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes PITNDPS Preventive Detention Order

Bail Granted in NDPS Case - Trial is Yet to Commence and Petitioners Have Been in Custody for Long - Supreme Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant order, the Supreme Court of India granted bail to two petitioners, Badsha SK and Rafikul Islam @ Kalu, who have been in custody for more than two years. The bench comprising Hon’ble Mr. Justice Hrishikesh Roy and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Pankaj Mithal made the decision after considering the length of the petitioners’ custody and the nature of the charges against them.

“The above would show that the trial is yet to commence in the matter(s) and in the meantime, petitioners have been in custody for long,” the bench observed. The Court noted that the State counsel has indicated that the first prosecution witness is scheduled to testify on December 14, 2023. [Para 4-5]

The petitioners were charged under FIR No. 342 of 2021 for carrying 100 bottles of Phensedyl Cough Syrup containing Codeine Phosphate. “Considering the above and the nature of the contraband involved, we deem it appropriate to grant bail to the petitioners,” stated the judgment. [Para 6]

The Court also mentioned that the State counsel indicated there are “no known criminal antecedents” against the accused. [Para 5]

The judgment has disposed of the Special Leave Petitions and stated that any pending applications, if present, shall stand closed. [Para 7-8]

The petitioner was represented by Mr. Anjan Datta, Adv., among others, while the State of West Bengal was represented by Mr. Shreyas Awasthi, Adv.

The decision has reignited conversations around the speed of trial processes and the importance of bail in prolonged custody situations.

Date of Decision: 13-09-2023

BADSHA vs THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL           

Latest Legal News