Agreement to Sell Creates No Right In Property: Allahabad High Court Sets Aside Trial Court Order Allowing Vendees To Be Impleaded In Partition Suit Uploading Notice on E-Portal Is Not Service in the Eyes of Law: Jharkhand High Court Quashes Reassessment for Breach of Section 148 Notice Requirements She Had Nothing to Gain, No Reason to Lie: Delhi High Court Upholds Murder Conviction of Husband and Son Solely on Dying Declarations of Burnt Woman Delay in Forwarding Material under Section 19(2) Not Fatal When Grounds of Arrest Are Communicated Immediately: Calcutta High Court Upholds ED Arrest in ₹6210 Crore PMLA Case Disqualification Proceedings Are Not Criminal Trials — Speaker Applied a Flawed Yardstick of ‘Beyond Reasonable Doubt’: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Speaker’s Order in Defection Case Against AITC-Backed MLA Sales Tax | Furnace Oil Cannot Be Treated As 'Plant and Machinery' Merely Because It Powers the Boiler: Bombay High Court 28 Years of Service Can’t Be Labelled Temporary: Andhra Pradesh High Court Upholds Regularization of Daily Wage Workers in Municipal Water Supply Clause Creating Perpetual Tenancy Is Void Without Registration – Allahabad High Court Rejects Tenant’s Defense Based On Unregistered Rent Deed Delay of Two Years in Lodging FIR Remains Unexplained — No Justification for Further Custody: Karnataka High Court Grants Bail Dismissal of Cheque Bounce Complaint for Default is Acquittal — Victim Can Appeal Without Seeking Leave: Punjab & Haryana High Court Where Victim Is Last Seen With Accused and Dies Soon After, Burden Shifts on Accused Under Section 106 Evidence Act and Section 29 POCSO: Patna High Court Registered Sale Agreement Can Be a Mask for Loan Security, Not a Binding Promise of Sale: Madras High Court Declares Oral Evidence Admissible to Expose Real Intention Personal Hearing Must Be Read Into Every Disciplinary Proceeding, Even If Rules Are Silent: Kerala High Court Cheating Allegations Cannot Be Brushed Aside Merely Because Civil Suits Are Pending: Telangana High Court Cyber Fraud Cannot Be Treated as a Mere Private Dispute Resolved by Money: Punjab & Haryana High Court Refuses to Quash FIR Despite Compromise Presumption Under Section 113-B Cannot Arise Without Proof of Dowry Harassment Soon Before Death: Allahabad High Court Upholds Acquittal in Dowry Death Case Conviction Cannot Rest on Recovery Alone from Shared Space: Supreme Court Acquits Man Accused of Murder Expert Opinion Is Weak Evidence – Dying Declaration Without Corroboration Cannot Convict: Andhra Pradesh High Court Acquits Man Accused of Wife’s Murder Order VIII Rule 1 Is Directory in Non-Commercial Suits—Striking Off Defence Without Considering Section 8 Arbitration Application Not Sustainable: Punjab and Haryana High Court Title Perfected Under Tenancy Act Cannot Be Reopened by Civil Court Without Proof of Fraud: Bombay High Court Dismisses Partition Suit Harassment Alone Isn’t Enough — There Must Be a Direct and Proximate Act That Drives Suicide: Gujarat High Court Acquits Accused in Section 306 IPC Case Police Report Is Not a Valid Complaint under Section 195 CrPC; Cognizance for Section 188 IPC Offence Without Public Servant’s Complaint Is Void: Andhra Pradesh High Court Assessee Cannot Be Asked To Prove 'Source of Source' For Pre-Amendment Loans: Delhi High Court Affirms ITAT Deletion of ₹10 Cr Addition Under Section 68 Statutory Remedies Cannot Be Bypassed by Filing a Writ Petition Years Later: Supreme Court Dismisses Delayed Challenge to Revenue Auction

Bail is Not to be Withheld as Punishment: High Court Grants Bail to Accused in NIA Drug and Terrorism Case

03 December 2024 6:53 PM

By: sayum


Punjab and Haryana High Court emphasizes constitutional right to a speedy trial in granting bail to four accused after nearly four years in custody.

In a significant ruling, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has granted bail to four individuals accused in a high-profile case involving charges under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS), and the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The court highlighted the prolonged pre-trial incarceration and the fundamental right to a speedy trial as key reasons for their release.

The case originates from an FIR registered on 25 April 2020, when police received information about Hilal Ahmed Shergojari, an alleged active member of Hizb-ul-Mujahideen, being involved in collecting funds through drug smuggling. Following the arrest of Hilal Ahmed with ₹29 Lakhs, the National Investigation Agency (NIA) took over the investigation and filed charges against eleven accused under various sections of the UAPA, NDPS Act, and IPC. The appellants, Gursant Singh, Manpreet Singh, Hilal Ahmed Shergojari, and Bikram Singh, have been in custody for nearly four years without the conclusion of their trial.

The court noted that the primary evidence against the accused included call detail records and statements of protected witnesses, which were not part of the public record. The court expressed concerns over relying heavily on such evidence at the bail stage.

Emphasizing the right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution, the court observed, "The appellants have been in custody for almost four years, and the trial has not yet commenced in earnest." The bench underscored that indefinite pre-trial detention amounts to a violation of the accused's fundamental rights.

The court pointed out the lack of direct recovery of narcotic drugs from most appellants and the absence of any attached properties allegedly bought with proceeds from the crime. It also noted that the serious allegations were based primarily on circumstantial evidence.

Gursant Singh: Accused of being involved in smuggling heroin and generating funds for Hizb-ul-Mujahideen. The court found the evidence, including allegations of handling large sums of money during the national lockdown, to be less credible.

Manpreet Singh: No charges under UAPA but implicated under NDPS and Arms Act. The court noted the lack of direct recovery of firearms from his possession.

Hilal Ahmed: While accused of being a Hizb-ul-Mujahideen member, the court found no direct evidence of his activities for the organization.

Bikram Singh: Alleged to have been in possession of heroin and cash. The court considered the extended pre-trial custody sufficient to sever ties with any criminal associates.

The court referred to several Supreme Court judgments that stress the importance of safeguarding the fundamental right to liberty and the necessity of a speedy trial. The judgment cited the Supreme Court's recent pronouncement in Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra, which emphasized that prolonged detention without trial violates the accused's constitutional rights.

Justice Jagmohan Bansal remarked, "If the State or any prosecuting agency including the Court concerned has no wherewithal to protect the fundamental right of an accused to have a speedy trial as enshrined under Article 21, then the State should not oppose the plea for bail on the ground that the crime committed is serious."

The High Court's decision to grant bail to the accused underscores the judiciary's commitment to upholding constitutional rights and ensuring that justice is not compromised by prolonged incarceration without trial. This ruling is likely to have a significant impact on future cases, particularly those involving stringent laws like the UAPA and NDPS Act, reinforcing the necessity of a balanced approach that respects both the severity of allegations and the fundamental rights of the accused.

Date of Decision: 12 July 2024

Latest Legal News