Judicial Review Is Not A Substitute For Examiner’s Judgment: Delhi High Court Rejects DJSE Candidate’s Plea Over Alteration of Marks Part-Payments Extend Limitation - Each Payment Revives Limitation: Delhi High Court 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 304 Part I IPC | Sudden Fight Between Brothers Over Mud House Construction: Jharkhand High Court Converts Murder Conviction To Culpable Homicide When Rape Fails, Section 450 Cannot Stand: Orissa High Court Acquits Accused of House-Trespass After Finding Relationship Consensual Concurrent Eviction Orders Will Not Be Reopened Under Article 227: Madras High Court Section 128 Contract Act | Surety’s Liability Is Co-Extensive: Kerala High Court Upholds Recovery from Guarantors’ Salary Custodial Interrogation Not Warranted When Offences Are Not Punishable With Death or Life: Karnataka High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail to Deputy Tahsildar in Land Records Case Order VIII Rules 3 & 5 CPC | Silence Is Admission: State’s Failure To Specifically Deny Hiring Amounts To Acceptance: JK HC Consumer | No Complete Deficiency In Service — Excess Rainfall Also To Blame: Supreme Court Halves Compensation In Groundnut Seed Crop Failure Case Development Cannot Override The Master Plan: Supreme Court Nullifies Cement Unit CLU In Agricultural Zone Negative Viscera Report Is Not a Passport to Acquittal: Madras High Court Confirms Life Term of Parents for Poisoning Mentally Retarded Daughter Observations Have Had a Demoralising and Chilling Effect: Allahabad High Court Judge Recuses from Bail Matter After Supreme Court’s Strong Remarks Controversial YouTube Remarks On ‘Black Magic Village’ Not A Crime: Gauhati High Court Quashes FIR Against Abhishek Kar “Failure To Specifically Deny Allegations Amounts To Admission”: J&K High Court Reiterates Law Under Order VIII CPC Section 293 Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Examination of Expert When DNA Report Is Disputed: MP High Court Medical Evidence Trumps False Alibi: Allahabad HC Upholds Conviction In Matrimonial Murder Where Strangulation Was Masked By Post-Mortem Burning Helping Young Advocates Is Not A Favour – It Is A Need For A Better Justice System: Rajasthan High Court Section 82 Cr.P.C. | Mere Non-Appearance Does Not Ipsi Facto Establish Absconding: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets Aside Order Declaring Student Abroad as Proclaimed Person

High Court Dismisses Bail Plea in Narcotics Case, Emphasizes Compliance with Search Provisions

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant legal development, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana has dismissed a bail application filed by Karamjeet Singh in a case involving alleged violations of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. The decision was handed down by the Hon’ble Mr. Justice Anoop Chitkara on 07.08.2023.

The petitioner, Karamjeet Singh, had sought bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, citing anticipatory injustice and the potential adverse impact of pre-trial incarceration on his family. However, the court’s judgment emphasized the petitioner’s criminal history and the gravity of the charges, which related to the possession of narcotics substances.

The court’s ruling revolved around the compliance with mandatory search and seizure provisions under Sections 42 and 50 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act. The judgment highlighted that “Compliance of the safeguards in Section 50 is mandatory obliging the Officer concerned to inform the person to be searched of his right to demand that search could be conducted in the presence of a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate.”

High court stated that “Search and seizure are not a new weapon in the armoury of those whose duty it is to maintain social security in its broadest sense.” The court emphasized that the admissibility of evidence obtained from an illegal search and seizure depended on facts and circumstances in each case.

The court further observed that the quantity of contraband involved in the case exceeded the commercial limit, which invoked the stringent provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act. The judgment highlighted that once the quantity exceeded the commercial threshold, the legislative mandates allowed judges no latitude in granting bail.

Additionally, the court underlined the petitioner’s right to a speedy trial and directed the trial court to expedite the proceedings. The judgment stated, “Considering the petitioner’s right to speedy trial coupled with the pre-trial incarceration, this court requests the concerned trial court to make all endeavours to conclude the trial by Dec 31, 2023...”

While the bail application was dismissed, legal experts noted that the court’s emphasis on compliance with search provisions and its commitment to a speedy trial reinforced the importance of due process and timely justice in such cases.                   

Date of Decision: 07.08.2023 

Karamjeet Singh VS State of Haryana 

Latest Legal News