Not A Mere Breach Of Contract: Telangana High Court Refuses To Quash FIR In ₹73 Crore Garment Investment Fraud Accused Not Entitled To Copies Of 'Unrelied' Upon Documents At The Stage Of Framing Of Charges Under Section 91 CrPC: Supreme Court Elected Representatives Have No Privilege To Resort To Violence; Criminal Antecedents Are Material For Bail Adjudication: Supreme Court Mere Absence Of Transport Documents Does Not Create A Presumption Of Violation Of Chhattisgarh Agricultural Cattle Preservation Act, 2004: Supreme Court Section 396 IPC | Conviction For 'Dacoity With Murder' Requires Proof That Murder Was Committed In The Course Of Dacoity: Allahabad High Court 'Developers Cannot Delay Conveyance For Eternity And Milk Additional FSI Benefits': Bombay High Court Upholds Societies' Deemed Conveyance Pre-Approval Statutory Dues Stand Extinguished Upon Approval Of Resolution Plan; GST Authorities Cannot Initiate Fresh Proceedings: Calcutta High Court Unregistered Agreement To Sell With Delivery Of Possession Is Admissible In A Suit For Specific Performance: Delhi High Court Stigmatic Order Discharging Probationer Without Inquiry Is Void For Violation Of Natural Justice: Gujarat High Court Execution Proceedings | Court Cannot Impose Arbitrary Financial Conditions Without Reason In Stay Applications: Himachal Pradesh High Court Section 528 BNSS | High Court Cannot Exercise Inherent Powers To Circumvent Statutory Bar Against Second Revision: Delhi High Court Advocate Empanelment | Restriction On Multiple Applications Is A Procedural Choice Within Employer’s Domain: Delhi High Court Acquittal Appeal | Double Presumption Of Innocence In Favour Of Accused Cannot Be Disturbed Merely Because Another View Is Possible: Gujarat High Court SC/ST Act | Offence Under Section 3(1)(g) Not Attracted If Dispossession Or Interference Is Not Due To Victim's Caste: Himachal Pradesh High Court Judicial Officer Must Maintain Distance From Practicing Advocates To Avoid Impropriety: Gujarat High Court Upholds Dismissal Section 183 BNSS | Investigating Officer Cannot Independently Record Further Statement Of Victim After Recording Before Magistrate: Karnataka High Court Non-Production Of Case Property And Missing Link Evidence In Seizure Cases Vitiates Prosecution: Himachal Pradesh High Court Employees Compensation Act | Death Due To Cardiac Arrest During Employment Is An 'Accident' Arising Out Of Stress And Strain Of Duty: J&K High Court Transfer Of Proceedings | Courts Must Issue Fresh Notice To Parties Even If They Had Appeared Before The Transferor Court: Kerala High Court Sets Aside Ex-Parte Award Section 80P(4) IT Act Does Not Deny Deduction To Regional Rural Banks As They Retain The 'Deemed Co-operative Society' Status Under Section 22 RRB Act: Madras High Court Property Purchased In Name Of Child For Family Benefit Is Not A 'Benami Transaction' Under Section 2(9) Of The 1988 Act: Madhya Pradesh High Court Person Without Caveatable Interest Cannot Challenge Will Or Seek Revocation Of Probate: Madras High Court Divorce | Cruelty Must Be Assessed By Cumulative Effect Of Matrimonial Conduct Rather Than Isolated Incidents: Orissa High Court Merely Labeling Insurance Policy As Comprehensive Does Not Create Unlimited Liability: MP High Court Order VII Rule 11 CPC | Plaint Must Be Rejected If Limitation Bar Is Apparent From Face Of Pleadings: Patna High Court Limitation Act | 'Sufficient Cause' Cannot Be Used To Revive Stale Or Dead Claims By State: Orissa High Court Quashes Order Condoning 53-Year Delay Employee Cannot Remain Dormant Like Rip Van Winkle & Awaken At Convenience: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dismisses Stale Service Plea With ₹25K Cost Section 29 NDPS Act | Mere Allegation Of 'Cooperation' Without Specific Overt Acts Cannot Sustain Charge Of Conspiracy: Rajasthan High Court Forest Land Status Does Not Extinguish Private Civil Title: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Decree For Possession Once Admitted In Evidence, Document Cannot Be De-Marked On Grounds Of Insufficiency Of Stamp Duty: Telangana High Court Section 190 BNSS | Mere Presence In Unlawful Assembly With Active Intent Renders Member Vicariously Liable For Homicidal Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court Contributory Negligence Under Motor Vehicles Act Cannot Be Inferred Without Cogent Evidence: Telangana High Court Enhances Compensation Motor Vehicles Act | Section 164 Compensation Of Rs. 5 Lakhs Applicable Even To Pending Claims Arising Prior To 2019 Amendment: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consumer Protection Act | Builder Liable To Pay Interest For Delayed Possession Despite Force Majeure Plea If Agreement Executed Post-Outbreak: State Commission

Bail Granted to  first-time offender under NDPS Act - right to speedy trial – P&H HC

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


On 21 April 2023,  Punjab and Haryana High Court granted regular bail to Karanveer Singh @ Karan in a case under Section 22(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act). The decision was made by Justice Jasjit Singh Bedi, who heard the petition under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.PC) seeking the grant of regular bail in FIR No. 15 dated 22.01.2021 registered at Police Station Sadar, Muktsar, District Sri Muktsar Sahib.

The brief facts of the case are that while the police party was on patrolling duty, two youngsters were seen near a bridge holding a plastic bag. Upon seeing the police party, they tried to flee from the spot after throwing the polythene bag but were caught. They were identified as Mukesh Kumar @ Sanju (since granted bail vide order dated 17.03.2023 passed in CRM-M-12313-2023) and Karanveer Singh @ Karan (petitioner). A search of the bag revealed 4800 tablets of RLAM-0.5. Based on the said recovery, the instant FIR was registered.

The petitioner claimed that he has been falsely implicated in the present case and that the recovery has been planted upon him. No independent witness was joined during the course of search and seizure. He further argued that there was a violation of mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act such as Section 42 and 50, and as he was a first-time offender, and his co-accused Mukesh Kumar @ Sanju had been granted bail, he was entitled to the concession of bail.

The Counsel for the State argued that a commercial quantity of contraband had been recovered from the petitioner, and therefore, in view of the bar contained under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, the petitioner was not entitled to the grant of bail. However, he admitted that the co-accused had been granted the concession of bail.

After hearing both the sides, the High Court relied on the salutary provisions of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which provides for the right to speedy trial, and held that provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act can be diluted in cases where there is a delay in the trial proceedings. The Court also considered the petitioner's status as a first-time offender and the fact that none of the 15 prosecution witnesses had been examined so far.

The Court cited the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Nitish Adhikary @ Bapan Vs. The State of West Bengal SLP (Crl.) Nos.5769/2022 Decided on 01.08.2022 and the decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Balraj Singh Vs. State of Punjab CRM-M-57386-2022 Decided on 14.12.2022. In both cases, bail was granted to the accused based on similar grounds.

The High Court allowed the petition and ordered the release of Karanveer Singh @ Karan on bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned CJM/Duty Magistrate, concerned. The petitioner was also ordered to appear before the police station concerned on the first Monday of every month till the conclusion of the trial and inform in writing each time that he is not involved in any other crime other than the present one. Additionally, he was asked to prepare an FDR in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- and deposit the same with the Trial Court. The same would be liable to be forfeited as per law in case of the absence of the petitioner from trial without sufficient cause.

Karanveer Singh @ Karan Vs State of Punjab 

Latest Legal News