Summary Security Force Court Lacks Jurisdiction Over Civil Offences Beyond Simple Hurt And Theft: High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh Vague Allegations Cannot Dissolve a Sacred Marital Relationship: Karnataka High Court Upholds Dismissal of Divorce Petition Daughters Entitled to Coparcenary Rights in Ancestral Property under Hindu Succession Act, 2005 Amendment: Madras High Court Divorce | False Allegations of Domestic Violence and Paternity Questions Amount to Mental Cruelty: Madhya Pradesh High Court Hostile Witness Testimony Admissible if Corroborated by Independent Evidence: Punjab and Haryana High Court Fraud Must Be Specifically Pleaded and Proved Beyond Reasonable Doubt to Invalidate Registered Documents: Andhra Pradesh High Court Himachal Pradesh High Court Upholds Rash Driving Conviction But Grants Probation to First-Time Offender Bus Driver Orissa High Court Upholds Life Imprisonment for Husband Convicted of Wife's Murder Merit Cannot Be Sacrificed for Procedural Technicalities in NEET UG Admissions: Rajasthan High Court Patna High Court Upholds Partition Decrees: Unregistered Partition Deed Inadmissible, Fails to Prove Prior Partition - Joint Hindu Family Property Presumed Undivided: Patna High Court Section 195(1)(b) CrPC | Judicial Integrity Cannot Be Undermined: Supreme Court Restores Evidence Tampering Case In a NDPS Case Readiness and Willingness, Not Time, Decide Equity in Sale Agreements: Supreme Court Denies Specific Performance Prolonged Detention Violates Fundamental Rights Under Article 21: Calcutta High Court Grants Bail in Money Laundering Case DV ACT | Economic Abuse Includes Alienation of Assets, Necessitating Protection Orders: Allahabad High Court Illegal Structures to Face Demolition: Bombay HC Directs Strict Action Against Unauthorized Constructions Justice Must Extend to the Last Person Behind Bars: Supreme Court Pushes for Full Implementation of BNSS Section 479 to Relieve Undertrial Prisoners Efficiency Over Central Oversight: Supreme Court Asserts Need for Localized SIT in Chennai Case Partition, Not Injunction, Is Remedy for Joint Property Disputes: P&H High Court Dismisses Plea Subsequent Purchaser Can Question Plaintiff’s Intent: MP High Court Clarifies Specific Relief Act 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

Custody Duration Not a Ground for Bail: Himachal Pradesh High Court Denies Bail in NDPS Case

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


High Court emphasizes substantial change in circumstances required for subsequent bail applications, citing Supreme Court precedents.

The Himachal Pradesh High Court has dismissed a petition for regular bail filed by Pradeep, who was arrested under Section 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act). The judgment, delivered by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Kainthla, underscores the absence of any substantial change in circumstances since the dismissal of the petitioner’s previous bail applications, reinforcing the stringent standards for granting bail in serious narcotic cases.

Pradeep, the petitioner, was arrested on May 22, 2023, for possession of a substantial quantity of heroin, leading to his charge under Section 21 of the NDPS Act. Following his arrest, Pradeep filed two bail petitions, one before the Sessions Judge and another before the High Court, both of which were dismissed. The current petition for regular bail was predicated on the completion of the investigation, the filing of the challan, and the examination of four out of 18 witnesses cited by the prosecution. Pradeep’s counsel argued that his continued custody, now extending over 14 months, was unwarranted and served no further purpose, highlighting his status as a young orphan with no capacity to influence the remaining witnesses.

Previous Criminal Antecedents and Heroin Quantity:

The court reiterated the petitioner’s criminal antecedents and the significant quantity of heroin found in his possession as major factors in the denial of bail. Justice Kainthla emphasized that these factors remained unchanged since the dismissal of the earlier bail petitions.

Requirement of Substantial Change in Circumstances:

Referring to established Supreme Court precedents, the court underscored that a subsequent bail application must demonstrate a substantial change in circumstances affecting the earlier decision. In the landmark case of State of Maharashtra vs. Captain Buddhikota Subha Rao and Kalyan Chandra Sarkar vs. Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav, the Supreme Court held that mere passage of time or daily custody does not constitute a substantial change.

Justice Kainthla quoted, “Accepting the argument that every day’s custody is a change in circumstance would render the Supreme Court’s guideline meaningless, as it would imply a continuous loop of bail applications without any substantial change affecting the earlier decision.”

The court’s decision was anchored in the principle that changes warranting bail must be substantial and impactful. The judge noted that Pradeep’s criminal background and the heroin quantity remained static factors that justified his continued detention. The court dismissed the argument that the ongoing custody and examination of some witnesses constituted significant changes, reiterating that these were expected procedural progressions rather than new, impactful developments.

The Himachal Pradesh High Court’s dismissal of Pradeep’s bail petition highlights the judiciary’s adherence to stringent standards in narcotic cases, especially concerning subsequent bail applications. By reaffirming the necessity for substantial changes in circumstances, the judgment reinforces legal principles aimed at preventing the misuse of bail provisions and ensuring that serious offenses, particularly those under the NDPS Act, are handled with due diligence and caution.

 

Date of Decision: July 2, 2024

Pradeep vs. State of Himachal Pradesh

Similar News