Court Must Conduct Inquiry on Mental Competency Before Appointing Legal Guardian - Punjab and Haryana High Court Right to Bail Cannot Be Denied Merely Due to the Sentiments of Society: Kerala High Court Grants Bail in Eve Teasing Case Supreme Court Extends Probation to 70-Year-Old in Decades-Old Family Feud Case Authorized Railway Agents Cannot Be Criminally Prosecuted for Unauthorized Procurement And Supply Of Railway Tickets: Supreme Court Anticipatory Bail Cannot Be Denied Arbitrarily: Supreme Court Upholds Rights of Accused For Valid Arbitration Agreement and Party Consent Necessary: Supreme Court Declares Ex-Parte Arbitration Awards Null and Void NDPS | Lack of Homogeneous Mixing, Inventory Preparation, and Magistrate Certification Fatal to Prosecution's Case: Punjab & Haryana High Court "May Means May, and Shall Means Shall": Supreme Court Clarifies Appellate Court's Discretion Under Section 148 of NI Act Punjab & Haryana High Court Orders Re-Evaluation of Coal Block Tender, Cites Concerns Over Arbitrary Disqualification Dying Declarations Must Be Beyond Doubt to Sustain Convictions: Madhya Pradesh High Court Acquits Accused in Burn Injury Murder Case No Legally Enforceable Debt Proven: Madras High Court Dismisses Petition for Special Leave to Appeal in Cheque Bounce Case Decisional Autonomy is a Core Part of the Right to Privacy : Kerala High Court Upholds LGBTQ+ Rights in Landmark Habeas Corpus Case Consent of a Minor Is No Defense Under the POCSO Act: Himachal Pradesh High Court Well-Known Marks Demand Special Protection: Delhi HC Cancels Conflicting Trademark for RPG Industrial Products High Court Acquits Accused Due to ‘Golden Thread’ Principle: Gaps in Medical Evidence and Unexplained Time Frame Prove Decisive Supreme Court Dissolves Marriage Citing Irretrievable Breakdown; Awards ₹12 Crore Permanent Alimony Cruelty Need Not Be Physical: Mental Agony and Emotional Distress Are Sufficient Grounds for Divorce: Supreme Court Section 195 Cr.P.C. | Tribunals Are Not Courts: Private Complaints for Offences Like False Evidence Valid: Supreme Court Limitation | Right to Appeal Is Fundamental, Especially When Liberty Is at Stake: Supreme Court Condones 1637-Day Delay FIR Quashed | No Mens Rea, No Crime: Supreme Court Emphasizes Protection of Public Servants Acting in Good Faith Trademark | Passing Off Rights Trump Registration Rights: Delhi High Court A Minor Procedural Delay Should Not Disqualify Advances as Export Credit When Exports Are Fulfilled on Time: Bombay HC Preventive Detention Must Be Based on Relevant and Proximate Material: J&K High Court Terrorism Stems From Hateful Thoughts, Not Physical Abilities: Madhya Pradesh High Court Denies Bail of Alleged ISIS Conspiracy Forwarding Offensive Content Equals Liability: Madras High Court Upholds Conviction for Derogatory Social Media Post Against Women Journalists Investigation by Trap Leader Prejudiced the Case: Rajasthan High Court Quashes Conviction in PC Case VAT | Notice Issued Beyond Limitation Period Cannot Reopen Assessment: Kerala High Court Fishing Inquiry Not Permissible Under Section 91, Cr.P.C.: High Court Quashes Trial Court’s Order Directing CBI to Produce Unrelied Statements and Case Diary Vague and Omnibus Allegations Cannot Sustain Criminal Prosecution in Matrimonial Disputes: Calcutta High Court High Court Emphasizes Assessee’s Burden of Proof in Unexplained Cash Deposits Case Effective, efficient, and expeditious alternative remedies have been provided by the statute: High Court Dismisses Petition for New Commercial Electricity Connection Maintenance Must Reflect Financial Realities and Social Standards: Madhya Pradesh High Court Upholds Interim Maintenance in Domestic Violence Land Classified as Agricultural Not Automatically Exempt from SARFAESI Proceedings: High Court Permissive Use Cannot Ripen into Right of Prescriptive Easement: Kerala High Court High Court Slams Procedural Delays, Orders FSL Report in Assault Case to Prevent Miscarriage of Justice Petitioner Did Not Endorse Part-Payments on Cheque; Section 138 NI Act Not Attracted: Madras High Court Minority Christian Schools Not Bound by Rules of 2018; Disciplinary Proceedings Can Continue: High Court of Calcutta Lack of Independent Witnesses Undermines Prosecution: Madras High Court Reaffirms Acquittal in SCST Case Proceedings Before Tribunal Are Summary in Nature and It Need Not Be Conducted Like Civil Suits: Kerala High Court Affirms Award in Accident Claim Affidavit Not Sufficient to Transfer Title Punjab and Haryana High Court

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

Similar News