Bail Applicant Under Mandatory Obligation To Disclose Criminal Antecedents, Non-Disclosure Results In Erroneous Decisions: Andhra Pradesh High Court Judicial Decrees Cannot Be Set Aside By Administrative Orders After Decades; Long-Standing Revenue Entries Must Be Protected: Allahabad High Court 'Any Use Whatsoever' Includes Promotion & Events: Bombay High Court Restrains New Indian Express Group From Hosting Commercial Events Outside Southern States Reserved Category Candidates Who Qualify On Their Own Seniority Must Be Adjusted Against Unreserved Vacancies: Calcutta High Court Decree For Possession Can Be Passed If Landlord-Tenant Relationship & Termination Are Admitted; Unregistered Lease Is Month-To-Month: Delhi High Court Prosecution Against Co-Accused Not Sustainable When Main Accused Is Discharged On Same Facts: Jharkhand High Court Admission Of Handwriting On Account Statement Is Not Admission Of Its Contents; Corroborative Evidence Necessary To Prove Claim: Gujarat High Court Omission Of Label Defects In Food Inspector's Spot Memo Fatal To Prosecution For Misbranding: Himachal Pradesh High Court RBI Must Consult State Government, Not Just Registrar, To Supersede Co-operative Bank Board; Principles Of Natural Justice Excluded Under Section 36AAA: Kerala High Court Suit Filed Before IBC Proceedings Cannot Be Dismissed Under Order VII Rule 11 CPC; Section 96 Moratorium Only Stays Pending Actions: Calcutta High Court Senior Citizens Not Technologically Savvy Cannot Be Penalized For Not Checking Case Status On Court Website: Tripura High Court Telangana High Court Quashes Case Against CM Revanth Reddy Over 2019 Election Roadshow, Cites Bar Under Section 195 CrPC Maintenance Tribunal Orders Passed Without Mandated Three-Member Coram Are A Nullity: Punjab & Haryana High Court School Register Entry Regarding Date Of Birth Lacks Probative Value Unless Source Of Information Is Proved: Madhya Pradesh High Court Sets Aside POCSO Conviction Limitation Period For Specific Performance Starts From Date Of Refusal If No Fixed Date Stipulated In Agreement: Karnataka High Court Pensionary Benefits Not ‘Pecuniary Advantage’, Cannot Be Deducted From Income For Motor Accident Compensation: Punjab & Haryana High Court Will | Disinheriting Caring Spouse In Favour Of Non-Relatives Is An ‘Unnatural Disposition’ Raising Grave Suspicion: Supreme Court Registration Does Not Automatically Validate Will If Process Is Shrouded In Suspicion; Testator's Illiteracy Increases Burden On Propounder: Supreme Court Propounder Faces Heavy Burden Of Proof When Testator Is Illiterate; Registration Does Not Cure Unexplained Suspicious Circumstances: Supreme Court

"Extended Custody Without Trial Conclusion Leads to Bail Grant: Rajasthan High Court Emphasizes Right to Speedy Trial in NDPS Act Case"

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


The Rajasthan High Court, in a significant ruling, has underscored the importance of a speedy trial in granting bail to an accused under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS Act). The Single Bench, presided over by Justice Rekha Borana, ordered the release of Kailash Kumar, who had been in custody for about three years in connection with FIR No. 65/2021 at the Police Station Nikumbh, District Chittorgarh.In a crucial judgment delivered on March 15, 2024, Justice Borana remarked, "Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, I deem it appropriate to allow this bail application solely on the ground of custody period of the accused petitioner and keeping in view the fact that the trial against him is proceeding at a snail's pace."

Kumar's bail application highlighted the protracted duration of his trial, where only two of the nineteen prosecution witnesses have been examined so far. Citing similar precedents from the Supreme Court, the court acknowledged the critical balance between statutory restrictions and constitutional rights, especially in cases where trials extend beyond reasonable timeframes.

The bail was granted based on prolonged incarceration and the slow progress of the trial, without commenting on the merits of the case. The court has set stringent conditions for the bail, including a personal bond of Rs. 2,00,000/- with two sureties of Rs. 1,00,000/- each, and mandated Kumar's appearance on all dates of hearing.

This decision comes amidst growing concerns over delayed trials and the impact of prolonged custody on the rights of the accused under Article 21 of the Constitution. The court's reliance on several Supreme Court decisions further strengthens the legal framework supporting the grant of bail in cases where the trial's conclusion is extensively delayed.

The judgment has been welcomed by legal experts as a reaffirmation of the judiciary's commitment to upholding the constitutional right to a speedy trial, while also balancing the stringent provisions of the NDPS Act. This ruling is expected to set a precedent for future cases involving extended judicial custody without trial conclusion.

Date of Decision: 15-03-2024

 KAILASH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

Latest Legal News