Registrar Has No Power To Cancel Registered Sale Deeds: Madras High Court Reaffirms Civil Court’s Exclusive Jurisdiction MP High Court Refuses to Quash FIR Against Principal of Sacred Heart Convent High School in Forced Conversion Case Employees Of Registered Societies Cannot Claim Article 311 Protection: Delhi High Court Clarifies Limits Of Constitutional Safeguards In Private Employment Maintenance Cannot Be Doubled Without Cogent Reasons, Wife's Education And Earning Capacity Relevant Factors: Gujarat High Court A Foreign Award Must First Be "Recognised" Before It Becomes A Decree: Bombay High Court A Registered Will Does Not Become Genuine Merely Because It Is Registered: Andhra Pradesh High Court Rejects Suspicious Testament Compensation Under Railways Act Requires Proof of Bona Fide Passenger – Mere GRP Entry and Medical Records Cannot Establish ‘Untoward Incident’: Delhi High Court Tenancy Rights Cannot Be Bequeathed By Will: Himachal Pradesh High Court Declares Mutation Based On Tenant’s Will Void Preventive Detention Cannot Be Based On Mere Apprehension of Bail: Delhi High Court Quashes PITNDPS Detention Order Probate Court Alone Has Exclusive Jurisdiction To Decide Validity Of Will – Probate Petition Cannot Be Rejected Merely Because A Civil Suit Is Pending: Allahabad High Court PwD Candidates Cannot Be Denied Appointment After Selection; Authorities Must Accommodate Them In Suitable Posts: Supreme Court Directs SSC And CAG To Appoint Candidates With Disabilities When Registered Partition Deed Exists, Plea Of Prior Oral Partition Cannot Override It:  Madras High Court Dismisses Second Appeal Municipal Bodies Cannot Demand Character Verification Of Residents: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Surveillance Condition In Building Sanction State Cannot Exploit Contractual Workers For Perennial Work: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Pay Parity To PUNBUS Drivers And Conductors Police Inputs Cannot Create New Building Laws: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Security-Based Conditions Near Nabanna 'Raising A Child As Daughter Does Not Make Her An Adopted Child': Punjab & Haryana High Court Once Leave Under Section 80(2) CPC Is Granted, Prior Notice to Government Is Not Mandatory: Orissa High Court Restores Trial Court Decree State Cannot Use Article 226 To Evade Compliance With Court Orders: Gauhati High Court Dismisses Union’s Petition With Costs ED Officers Accused Of Assault By ₹23-Crore Scam Accused – FIR Survives But Probe Shifted To CBI: Jharkhand High Court High Courts Should Not Interfere In Academic Integrity Proceedings At Preliminary Stage: Kerala High Court Power Of Attorney Holder With Personal Knowledge Can Depose In Cheque Bounce Cases: Kerala High Court Sets Aside Acquittal Agreement Cannot Dissolve Hindu Marriage, But Can Prove Mutual Separation”: J&K & Ladakh High Court Denies Maintenance

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