Trademark Pirates Face Legal Wrath: Delhi HC Enforces Radio Mirchi’s IP Rights Swiftly Madras High Court Upholds Extended Adjudication Period Under Customs Act Amid Allegations of Systemic Lapses Disputes Over Religious Office Will Be Consolidated for Efficient Adjudication, Holds Karnataka High Court Motive Alone, Without Corroborative Evidence, Insufficient for Conviction : High Court Acquits Accused in 1993 Murder Case Himachal Pradesh HC Criticizes State for Delays: Orders Timely Action on Employee Grievances Calls for Pragmatic Approach to Desertion and Cruelty in Divorce Cases: Calcutta High Court Orders Fresh Trial Juvenile Tried as Adult: Bombay High Court Validates JJB Decision, Modifies Sentence to 7 Years Retrospective Application of Amended Rules for Redeployment Declared Invalid: Orissa High Court NDPS Act Leaves No Room for Leniency: HC Requires Substantial Proof of Innocence for Bail No Protection Without Performance: MP High Court Denies Relief Under Section 53A of Transfer of Property Act Delays in processing applications for premature release cannot deprive convicts of interim relief: Karnataka High Court Grants 90-Day Parole Listing All Appeals Arising From A Common Judgment Before The Same Bench Avoids Contradictory Rulings: Full Bench of the Patna High Court. Age Claims in Borderline Cases Demand Scrutiny: Madhya Pradesh HC on Juvenile Justice Act Bishop Garden Not Available for Partition Due to Legal Quietus on Declaration Suit: Madras High Court Exclusion of Certain Heirs Alone Does Not Make a Will Suspicious: Kerala High Court Upholds Validity of Will Proof of Delivery Was Never Requested, Nor Was it a Payment Precondition: Delhi High Court Held Courier Firm Entitled to Payment Despite Non-Delivery Allegations Widowed Daughter Eligible for Compassionate Appointment under BSNL Scheme: Allahabad High Court Brutality of an Offence Does Not Dispense With Legal Proof: Supreme Court Overturns Life Imprisonment of Two Accused Marumakkathayam Law | Partition Is An Act By Which The Nature Of The Property Is Changed, Reflecting An Alteration In Ownership: Supreme Court Motor Accident Claim | Compensation Must Aim To Restore, As Far As Possible, What Has Been Irretrievably Lost: Supreme Court Awards Rs. 1.02 Crore Personal Criticism Of Judges Or Recording Findings On Their Conduct In Judgments Must Be Avoided: Supreme Court Efficiency In Arbitral Proceedings Is Integral To Effective Dispute Resolution. Courts Must Ensure That Arbitral Processes Reach Their Logical End: Supreme Court Onus Lies On The Propounder To Remove All Suspicious Circumstances Surrounding A Will To The Satisfaction Of The Court: Calcutta High Court Deeds of Gift Not Governed by Section 22-B of Registration Act: Andhra Pradesh High Court Testimony Of  Injured Witness Carries A Built-In Guarantee Of Truthfulness: Himachal Pradesh High Court Upholds Conviction for Attempted Murder POCSO | Conviction Cannot Be Sustained Without Conclusive Proof Of Minority - Burden Lies On The Prosecution: Telangana High Court Credible Eyewitness Account, Supported By Forensic Corroboration, Creates An Unassailable Chain Of Proof That Withstands Scrutiny: Punjab and Haryana High Court Jammu & Kashmir High Court Grants Bail to Schizophrenic Mother Accused of Murdering Infant Son

Bail Under NDPS Act is an Exception, Not the Rule: High Court of Tripura Cancels Bail

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


Discrepancies in GD entries and lack of credible grounds for non-guilt lead to bail cancellation in NDPS case.

The High Court of Tripura, under the bench of Justice Arindam Lodh, has cancelled the bail of Mijanur Rahaman, originally granted by the Special Judge, Sepahijala District, in a narcotics case. The judgment emphasized the strict criteria under the NDPS Act for granting bail, highlighting procedural discrepancies and insufficient grounds for the accused’s non-guilt as key reasons.

The case revolves around Mijanur Rahaman, who was arrested under Sections 20(b)(ii)(c), 25, and 29 of the NDPS Act in connection with a drug-related offence. The Special Judge of Sepahijala District, Sonamura, had granted bail to Rahaman, which was subsequently challenged by the State of Tripura. The prosecution argued that there were no reasonable grounds to believe that Rahaman was not guilty and pointed out discrepancies in the General Diary (GD) entries recorded by the police.

Procedural Discrepancies in GD Entries:

The court meticulously examined the discrepancies in the GD entries, which formed a crucial part of the initial bail decision. Justice Lodh stated, “The dates mentioned in GD Entries No. 19, 20, and 21 reveal apparent printing errors. The entry dates of GDE No. 19 and 20 are consistent, while GDE No. 21’s date appears to be a typographical error, referring to an earlier date than the previous entries.”

Legal Standards for Bail Under NDPS Act:

Emphasizing the stringent conditions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, the court noted that simply filing a charge-sheet does not automatically justify granting bail. The court remarked, “Section 37 clearly mandates that the court must have reasonable grounds to believe that the accused is not guilty and is unlikely to reoffend. These provisions ensure that bail in NDPS cases is not granted lightly.”

Assessment of Reasonable Grounds for Non-Guilt:

The court evaluated whether there were substantial grounds to believe Rahaman’s non-guilt. Drawing from the Supreme Court’s interpretation in Narcotics Control Bureau vs. Mohit Aggarwal, Justice Lodh emphasized, “The requirement for ‘reasonable grounds’ means that the evidence must be credible and plausible, giving the court sufficient reason to believe in the accused’s non-guilt.”

Justice Lodh stated, “Granting bail to an accused under the NDPS Act is an exception and not the rule. The materials on record do not suggest any reasonable grounds to believe that the accused is not guilty of the alleged offences.”

The High Court’s decision to cancel the bail of Mijanur Rahaman reinforces the judiciary’s strict stance on bail under the NDPS Act. By overturning the Special Judge’s order, the court reaffirmed the necessity of rigorous adherence to legal standards designed to prevent premature release of individuals accused of serious drug offences. This ruling is expected to influence future bail considerations under the NDPS Act, promoting a cautious and stringent approach.

 

Date of Decision: 20th June 2024

State of Tripura vs. Mijanur Rahaman

Similar News