CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints Minimum Wages Cannot Be Ignored While Determining Just Compensation: Andhra Pradesh High Court Re-Fixes Income of Deceased Mason, Enhances Interest to 7.5% 34 IPC | Common Intention Is Inferred From Manner Of Attack, Weapons Carried And Concerted Conduct: Allahabad High Court Last Date of Section 4 Publication Is Crucial—Error in Date Cannot Depress Market Value: Bombay High Court Enhances Compensation in Beed Land Acquisition Appeals Order 26 Rule 10-A CPC | Rarest of Rare: When a Mother Denies Her Own Child: Rajasthan High Court Orders DNA Test to Decide Maternity Acquittal Is Not a Passport Back to Uniform: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Dismissal of Constable in NDPS Case Despite Trial Court Verdict Limitation Under Section 468 Cr.P.C. Cannot Be Ignored — But Section 473 Keeps the Door Open in the Interest of Justice: P&H HC Non-Stamping Renders A Document Inadmissible, Not Void – Defect Is Curable Once Duty Is Paid: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Specific Performance MP High Court Upholds Ladli Behna Yojana Criteria; Rules Registration Deadlines and Age Limits Fall Under Executive Domain Criminal Courts Are Not Recovery Agents: Orissa High Court Grants Bail in ₹3.5 Crore Land Fraud Cases Citing Article 21 and Terminal Illness Employee Cannot Switch Cadre At His Sweet Will After Accepting Promotion: J&K High Court Rejects Claim For Retrospective Assistant Registrar Appointment Anticipatory Bail Cannot Expire With Charge-Sheet: Supreme Court Reiterates Liberty Is Not Bound by Procedural Milestones Order II Rule 2 Cannot Eclipse Amendment Power Under Order VI Rule 17: MP High Court Refuses to Stall Will-Based Title Suit Grounds of Arrest Must Be Personal, Not Formal – But Detailed Allegations Suffice: Kerala High Court Upholds Arrest in Sabarimala Gold Misappropriation Case Grounds of Arrest Are Not a Ritual – They Are a Constitutional Mandate Under Article 22(1): Allahabad High Court Sets Aside Arrest for Non-Supply of Written Grounds Sect. 25 NDPS | Mere Ownership Cannot Fasten NDPS Liability – ‘Knowingly Permits’ Must Be Proved Beyond Reasonable Doubt: MP High Court Section 308 CrPC | Revocation of Pardon Is Not Automatic on Prosecutor’s Certificate: Karnataka High Court Joint Family and Ancestral Property Are Alien to Mohammedan Law: Gujarat High Court Sets Aside Injunction Right to Health Cannot Wait for Endless Consultations: Supreme Court Pulls Up FSSAI Over Delay in Front-of-Pack Warning Labels If A Son Dies Intestate Leaving Wife And Children, The Mother Has No Share: Karnataka High Court

Drug Peddlers... Need to be Dealt With Firmly and Sternly With No Sympathy – High Court in Narcotic Drugs Case

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a landmark judgment on the 26th of February 2024, the Punjab and Haryana High Court, presided over by Justice Sandeep Moudgil, firmly rejected a bail petition in a case involving narcotics possession under the NDPS Act.

 

The judgment revolved around a regular bail plea under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code in a case registered under Section 22 of the NDPS Act. The court’s decision was heavily influenced by the provisions of Sections 35 and 37 of the NDPS Act.

Petitioner Gautam Sehgal, a chemist, was accused of having unaccounted intoxicant capsules and tablets. The FIR specified the seizure of red and brown capsules, along with white tablets, without valid documentation.

 

Severity of Drug Menace: The court highlighted the extensive drug trafficking issue in Punjab, acknowledging its devastating effects on youth and the larger society.

Petitioner’s Alleged Role: The absence of valid prescriptions or bills for the seized narcotics pointed towards Sehgal’s involvement in illicit drug activities.

Presumption of Culpability: According to Section 35 of the NDPS Act, the court presumed a culpable mental state due to the lack of a convincing explanation from Sehgal.

Criteria for Bail: Referencing Section 37 of the NDPS Act, the judgment underlined that bail is not merited unless there are reasonable grounds to believe in the accused’s innocence.

Ongoing Investigation: The decision to deny bail was also influenced by the ongoing investigation and the pending Forensic Science Laboratory report.

Decision The court, underscoring the need for a stringent approach against drug traffickers, dismissed Sehgal’s bail application, citing the case’s serious nature and the ongoing investigation.

 Date of Decision: 26.02.2024

Gautam Sehgal Versus State of Punjab

 

Latest Legal News