Electricity Act 2003 | Section 56(2) Does Not Preclude Licensee From Raising Supplementary Demand After Two Years; Only Restricts Right To Disconnect: Supreme Court Dissolution Of Partnership At Will | Outgoing Partner Entitled To Market Value Of Assets As On Date Of Distribution, Not Date Of Dissolution: Supreme Court SEBI | Release Of Escrow Under Buyback Regulations Does Not Preclude Independent Inquiry Into Fraud Under PFUTP Regulations: Supreme Court Promotion Based On Merit Does Not Wipe Out Past Adverse Records But Must Be Balanced In FR 56(j) Compulsory Retirement: Supreme Court Appellate Court Can Convict For Offence Even If Charge Not Framed By Trial Court Under Section 464 CrPC: Supreme Court Extradition | Sovereign Assurance Does Not Override Judicial Sentencing; Cannot Be Used To Artificially Accelerate Sentence Completion: Supreme Court Article 21 | State Has A Positive Duty To Protect Public Health By Implementing Front-Of-Package Labelling Regulations: Supreme Court Revenue Entries Are Not Documents Of Title, Cannot Replace Substantive Evidence In Property Disputes: Supreme Court Long Possession Without Hostile Animus Does Not Amount To Adverse Possession: Supreme Court Administrative Discretion Must Comply With Article 14; Subsequent Executive Decisions Cannot Retroactively Cure Failure Of Timely Performance: Supreme Court Municipal Corporation Cannot Unilaterally Downgrade Market Value Of Land Acquired For Road Widening To Deny TDR Certificates: Andhra Pradesh High Court Execution Of Agreement To Sell Does Not Automatically Terminate Existing Tenancy: Allahabad High Court Writ Jurisdiction Not Maintainable When Title To Property Is Under A Cloud And Subject Matter Of Disputed Facts: Andhra Pradesh High Court Amendment Of Plaint Seeking Impleadment Of Third Parties And Addition Of Time-Barred Claims In A Partition Suit Cannot Be Permitted: Bombay High Court Reassessment Order Does Not Result In Merger Of Original Assessment Order If Issues Are Distinct: Andhra Pradesh High Court GST Assessment Order Uploaded Only Under 'Additional Notices' Tab Without Separate Intimation Violates Principles Of Natural Justice: Calcutta High Court 'Prolonged Inaction' Cannot Be Rewarded: Delhi High Court Upholds CESTAT Refusal To Condone 968-Day Delay In Filing Customs Appeal Probate No Longer Mandatory To Establish Rights Under A Will Following 2025 Amendment To Indian Succession Act: J&K High Court Review Jurisdiction Cannot Be Used To Introduce New Factual Foundations Or Reopen Concluded Arbitral Awards: Karnataka High Court High Court Cannot Invoke Article 227 To Strike Off Plaint When Statutory Remedy Under Order VII Rule 11 CPC Is Available: Madras High Court Section 58 BNSS | Detention Beyond 24 Hours Without Magistrate’s Authority Vitiates Arrest And Subsequent Remand: Orissa High Court Arbitrator Is The Sole Judge Of Quality And Quantity Of Evidence, Court Cannot Act As Court Of Appeal: Punjab & Haryana High Court Section 5 Limitation Act | Court Cannot Condone Delay In A Mechanical Manner Without Ascertaining Bona Fides Of The Applicant: Calcutta High Court High Court Cannot Quash FIR Under Section 482 CrPC By Conducting Mini-Trial On Merits: Punjab & Haryana High Court Taxation Law | Mere Assertion Of Natural Justice Violation On Disputed Facts Won't Bypass Statutory Appeal: Delhi High Court

High Court Grants Bail in NDPS Case Citing "Prolonged Incarceration" and "Significant Trial Delay"

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a notable judgment today, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana granted bail to Ramesh Yadav, the petitioner in a case under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act. The decision, pronounced by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Pankaj Jain, centered on the "prolonged incarceration" of the petitioner and the "significant delay in the trial process," as highlighted in the court's observations.

Justice Jain observed, "From the perusal of the state of affairs, it is evident that it is the prosecution witnesses... who are the main reason for delaying the trial." This comment underlines the court's concern over the inefficiency and delays caused by the non-appearance of key prosecution witnesses, including Sub-Inspector Bakhshish Singh and HC Amarjit Singh.

The petitioner, Ramesh Yadav, had been in custody for over four years and ten months, with the trial making minimal progress. The court noted that of the 13 cited prosecution witnesses, only one had been partially examined. The judgment emphasized the lack of any other pending criminal cases against the petitioner under the NDPS Act.

Referencing multiple Supreme Court rulings, Justice Jain highlighted the principle that "prolonged incarceration has to be considered dehors bar contained under Section 37 of the NDPS Act." This legal perspective acknowledges the fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution, where prolonged custody can override statutory embargoes, especially in cases where trial delays are significant.

Date of Decision: 15.12.2023

RAMESH YADAV VS STATE OF PUNJAB

 

Latest Legal News