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 Right to Speedy Trial

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


 In a significant ruling, the Punjab-Haryana High Court today granted regular bail to Mahan Paswan, alias Makhan, in a case involving drug trafficking charges. The decision, pronounced by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Moudgil, underscored the right to a speedy trial as a fundamental aspect of justice.

Observation by the Court: The court observed, "No useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner behind bars for an indefinite period," referencing the petitioner's prolonged custody of over two years without substantial progress in the trial.

Background of the Case: Paswan was implicated in an FIR dated October 5, 2021, under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act), involving the recovery of 80 Kg and 250 grams of Ganja. The defense highlighted alleged procedural lapses in the investigation, particularly non-compliance with Section 42 of the NDPS Act, which mandates proper recording and reporting of information in drug seizure cases.

Court's Reasoning: Emphasizing the principles enshrined in the Constitution of India, the court observed that the right to a speedy trial is paramount. The court's decision also factored in the slow pace of the trial, as only 3 out of 17 prosecution witnesses had been examined since the charges were framed.

Impact of the Ruling: This ruling is significant in its reinforcement of procedural requirements under the NDPS Act and the constitutional right to a speedy trial. It sets a precedent in cases where delays in the judicial process and potential procedural lapses can impact the rights of the accused.

Future Implications: The decision is expected to influence future bail applications under the NDPS Act, particularly in cases where extended periods of custody and slow trial processes are involved.

Legal Representation: The petitioner was represented by advocate Mr. SPS Khaira, while the respondent, the State of Punjab, was represented by Mr. Rajiv Verma, DAG Punjab.

Date of Decision: 22 December 2023

MAKHAN PASWAN @ MAKHAN VS STATE OF PUNJAB   

 

Latest Legal News