Even 1.5 Years in Jail Doesn’t Dilute Section 37 NDPS Rigour: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Bail in 710 Kg Poppy Husk Case Stay of Conviction Nullifies Disqualification Under Section 8(3) RP Act: Allahabad High Court Dismisses Quo Warranto Against Rahul Gandhi Custodial Interrogation Necessary to Uncover ₹2 Crore MGNREGA Scam: Kerala High Court Rejects Anticipatory Bail for Vendors in Corruption Case Order 41 Rule 23 CPC | Trial Court Cannot Decide Title Solely on a Vacated Judgment: Himachal Pradesh High Court Strikes By Bar Associations Cannot Stall Justice: Allahabad High Court Holds Office Bearers Liable for Contempt if Revenue Suits Are Delayed Due to Boycotts To Constitute a Service PE, Services Must Be Furnished Within India Through Employees Present in India: Delhi High Court Medical Negligence | State Liable for Loss of Vision in Botched Cataract Surgeries: Gauhati High Court Awards Compensation Waiver of Right Under Section 50 NDPS is Valid Even Without Panch Signatures: Bombay High Court Agricultural Land Is 'Property' Under Hindu Women’s Right to Property Act, 1937: A.P. High Court Tenant Who Pays Rent After Verifying Landlord’s Will Cannot Dispute His Title Under Section 116 Evidence Act: Himachal Pradesh High Court Dismisses Eviction Challenge by HP State Cooperative Bank Clever Drafting Cannot Override Limitation Bar: Gujarat High Court Rejects Suit for Specific Performance Once Divorce by Mutual Consent Is Final, Wife Cannot Pursue Criminal Case for Stridhan Without Reserving Right to Do So: Himachal Pradesh High Court Caste-Based Insults Must Show Intent – Mere Abuse Not Enough for Atrocities Act: Gujarat High Court Upholds Acquittal Failure to Inform Detenu of Right to Represent to Detaining Authority Vitiates NSA Detention: Gauhati High Court Awarding Further Interest On Penal Charges Is Contrary To Fundamental Policy Of Indian Arbitration Law: Bombay 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