Lethargy Is Not an Exceptional Circumstance: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Striking Off of Defence for Delay in Filing Written Statement Vague Decree of Injunction Can’t Be Executed by Attaching Machines: Rajasthan High Court Strikes Down Execution Order Mere permission to join proceedings without allowing filing of written statement is illusory: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets Aside Ex Parte Proceedings Unregistered Power of Attorney Can’t Transfer Property: MP High Court Denies Title, Dismisses Ejectment Suit Mere Non-Recovery of Weapon Is Not Fatal When Circumstantial and Medical Evidence Prove Guilt Beyond Doubt: Allahabad High Court Failure to Examine Gazetted Officer and Magistrate Who Certified Seizure Goes to Root of Fair Trial Under NDPS Act : Calcutta High Court Tender Years Doctrine Is No Longer Good Law: Delhi High Court Slams Mother’s Custody Claim Built on Parental Alienation Negation of Bail is the Rule in NDPS Cases Involving Commercial Quantity: Himachal Pradesh High Court Denies Bail Single Stab Injury in Heat of Passion During Sudden Quarrel Is Not Murder: Kerala High Court Section 10 CPC Inapplicable To Labour Court Proceedings; Stay Of Individual Disputes Denied: Karnataka High Court 138 NI Act | Once Issuance and Signature on Cheque Are Admitted, Burden Shifts on Accused to Dislodge Statutory Presumption: Madras High Court Confession Cannot Substitute Proof: Bombay High Court Acquits Husband Convicted of Wife’s Murder "Sole Eyewitness Testimony, Corroborated by Medical and Recovery Evidence, Is Enough to Sustain Conviction Under Section 302 IPC: Allahabad High Court Partition Once Effected Cannot Be Reopened on Vague Allegations of Fraud: Andhra Pradesh High Court Upholds Registered Family Partition Deed Cancellation of Land Acquisition Compensation Without Allegation or Hearing Is Arbitrary: Supreme Court Restores Compensation to Innocent Land Owner Whether Act Was in Discharge of Official Duty Is a Question of Fact — Magistrate, Not High Court, Must Decide: Supreme Court Restricts Writ Interference in BNSS Cases Section 175(4) BNSS | Affidavit Is Not Optional — Even Complaints Against Public Servants Must Follow Procedural Rigour: Supreme Court Magistrate Cannot Be Directed to Recall His Judicial Order by a Writ Court: Supreme Court Warns Against Article 226 Interference in Pending Criminal Proceedings Even In Absence of Written Demand, If Substantial Dispute Exists or Is Apprehended, Reference Under Section 10 ID Act Is Valid: Supreme Court Absence of Classical Signs of Strangulation and Possibility of Hanging Nullifies Homicidal Theory: Supreme Court Holds Medical Evidence Alone Cannot Prove Guilt Confession Must Be Direct Acknowledgment of Guilt, Not Mere Presence at Scene: Supreme Court Slams Misuse of Section 164 CrPC Reversal of Acquittal Without Dislodging Trial Court’s Reasoning Is Impermissible: Supreme Court Restores Acquittal

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