UDCPR | Municipal Authorities Empowered To Grant Relaxation For Recreational Open Spaces In Redevelopment Projects: Bombay High Court Appellate Court Can Enhance Compensation Under Motor Vehicles Act Even Without Cross-Appeal By Claimants: Allahabad High Court State Instrumentalities Cannot Supplement Reasons For Withholding Public Money Via Affidavits Years Later: Calcutta High Court Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act | Victim's Status As 'Illegal Immigrant' Does Not Dilute Offence Or Shield Perpetrator: Bombay High Court Clubbing Of Criminal Trials | No Basis To Direct Consolidation If Connected Proceedings Have Already Concluded: Delhi High Court IBC ‘Clean Slate’ Principle Cannot Extinguish Pre-existing Crystallized Liability Under Labour Awards: Bombay High Court Section 406 IPC | 'Donation' Does Not Constitute 'Entrustment'; Criminal Prosecution Quashed In Absence Of Aggrieved Victim: Delhi High Court Failure To Deliver Possession Of Plot Constitutes "Continuous Wrong" Giving Rise To Recurrent Cause Of Action Under Consumer Protection Act: Delhi State Commission High Court Cannot Entertain Writ Petition Under Article 226 When Statutory Appellate Remedy Under Section 107 CGST Act Is Available: Gujarat High Court Appointment Of Temple Servants Is The Exclusive Prerogative Of The Hereditary Trustee: Kerala High Court Stay Of Suit Proceedings Under CPC Does Not Automatically Bar Adjudication Of Pending Temporary Injunction Application: Rajasthan High Court Section 136A MV Act | Supreme Court Directs States To Impound Vehicles With Unpaid E-Challans And Mandates Electronic Enforcement Compliance Section 115 CPC | Executing Court Cannot Dismiss Execution Petition On Hyper-Technical Grounds Regarding LRs Of Judgment Debtor: Himachal Pradesh High Court Succession Act | Will Not Validly Executed If Attesting Witness Admits Signing Without Witnessing Testator’s Signature: Madras High Court High Court Cannot Interfere Under Article 227 To Correct Errors Of Fact Or Act As An Appellate Court: Madhya Pradesh High Court Advocates Act 1961 | Bar Council Has No Power To Suspend Advocate Pending Disciplinary Enquiry: Allahabad High Court Identification Of Accused By Police Personnel In Pitch Darkness Without Prior Acquaintance Is Unreliable: Himachal Pradesh High Court Body Shaming Or Insulting Physical Appearance Does Not Per Se Constitute Offence Under Section 509 IPC: Karnataka High Court Drishyam 3 | Interim Injunction To Restrain Film Release Cannot Be Granted Without Establishing Clear Subsisting Legal Right: Madras High Court Town Planning Scheme | Statutory Notice To Occupiers Under Rule 12(2)(a) Punjab Municipal Rules Is Mandatory And Independent Of Notice To Owner: Punjab & Haryana 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