Lack Of Boundaries In Sale Deed Not Fatal To Title If Plot Number & Parent Title Are Sufficiently Identifiable: Calcutta High Court Terror Perception Of Underworld Justifies Delay In Invoking MCOCA; Purely Civil Disputes Can Metamorphose Into Criminal Offence: Bombay High Court Identical Wills Executed By Spouses On Same Day Not Necessarily 'Mutual Wills' Restricting Power Of Alienation: Delhi High Court Written Notice Not Mandatory For Revoking Permission Under Section 41 Presidency Small Cause Courts Act: Gujarat High Court Wife Cannot Maintain Complaint Against Husband Under Senior Citizens Act; Not Intended For Spousal Disputes: Karnataka High Court Mere Presence At Scene Or Facilitation Without Intent To Aid Crime Does Not Amount To Abetment: Delhi High Court Offences Under IT Act Punishable With 3 Years Imprisonment Are Bailable Under Section 77B: Kerala High Court Grants Pre-Arrest Bail In KCA Data Theft Case Premature Release Can't Be Denied Citing Section 435 CrPC If Sentence Under Central Act Is Already Served: Madras High Court Suppression Of Higher Qualification To Secure Job Reserved For Lower Education Is Foundational Fraud, Sympathy Has No Role: Supreme Court MBBS Admissions | Candidate Using NIOS Marks To Meet 50% Eligibility Cannot Claim State Govt School Quota: Orissa High Court High Court Cannot Exercise Article 227 Power To Strike Off Plaint When Remedy Under Order VII Rule 11 CPC Exists: Madras High Court Section 69 IEA | Onus On Propounder To Lead Secondary Evidence & Remove Suspicious Circumstances If Attesting Witnesses Are Dead: Telangana High Court

Conditional Liberty Cannot Override Statutory Embargo in NDPS Cases Involving Commercial Quantity: Bail Dismissed: Gauhati High Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Gauhati High Court, presided over by Honourable Mr. Justice Robin Phukan, has declined the bail application of Vinod Bijarnia, accused in a narcotic drugs case. This decision, dated 18th November 2023, accentuates the strict stance of the judiciary in matters involving commercial quantities of narcotics under the NDPS (Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances) Act.

The case, filed under Sections 21(C)/29 of the NDPS Act, revolves around the alleged transportation of Phensedyle, a Codeine-based cough syrup, in commercial quantities. Bijarnia, who has been in custody since November 17, 2021, sought relief under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

In his detailed observation, Justice Phukan stated, “In view of the nature and gravity of the offence and the punishment prescribed for the same, this Court is of the opinion that this is not a fit case to grant the privilege of bail under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. to the accused.” This comment underscores the court’s strict interpretation of the law when it comes to narcotics-related offences.

The defence argued for bail citing a delay in trial and reliance on inadmissible evidence under Section 67 of the NDPS Act. However, the prosecution countered that the trial delay was not significant, with the first witness already examined. The court acknowledged the gravity of the offence and referenced several Supreme Court rulings, emphasizing stringent conditions for granting bail under the NDPS Act in cases involving commercial quantities of narcotics.

In its verdict, the court also directed the lower court to expedite the trial, aiming to complete it within three months, ensuring justice is not delayed. This decision aligns with the court’s approach to balance the need for a speedy trial with the seriousness of the offence.                                                   

Date of Decision: 18.11.2023

VINOD BIJARNIA VERSUS UNION OF INDIA

Latest Legal News