Employees Cannot Pick Favourable Terms and Reject the Rest: Bombay High Court Upholds SIDBI’s Cut-Off Date for Pension to CPF Optees Rules of the Game Were Never Changed: Delhi High Court Upholds CSIR’s Power to Prescribe Minimum Threshold in CASE-2023 Resignation Does Not Forfeit Earned Pension: Calcutta High Court Declares Company Superannuation Benefit as ‘Wages’ Under Law Fraud Vitiates Everything—Stranger Can File Independent Suit Against Compromise Decree: Bombay High Court Refuses to Reject 49-Year-Old Challenge at Threshold Mere Long Possession By One Co-Owner Does Not Destroy The Co-Ownership Right Of The Other: Madras High Court State Cannot Hide Behind An Illegal Undertaking: Punjab & Haryana High Court Questions Denial Of Retrospective Regularization Article 21-A Cannot Be Held Hostage to Transfer Preferences: Allahabad High Court Upholds Teacher Redeployment to Enforce Pupil–Teacher Ratio Arbitrator Cannot Rewrite Contract Or Travel Beyond Pleadings: Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes ₹5.18 Crore Award Director’ in GeM Clause 29 Does Not Mean ‘Independent Director’: Gujarat High Court Sets Aside Technical Disqualification Section 25(3) Is Sacrosanct – Removal of a Trademark Cannot Rest on a Defective Notice: Delhi High Court Not Every Broken Promise Is Rape: Delhi High Court Draws Clear Line Between ‘Suspicion’ and ‘Grave Suspicion’ in False Promise to Marry Case Section 37 Is Not A Second Appeal On Merits: Delhi High Court Refuses To Re-Appreciate Evidence In Challenge To Arbitral Award Recovery After Retirement Is Clearly Impermissible: Bombay High Court Shields Retired Teacher From ₹2.80 Lakh Salary Recovery Paying Tax Does Not Legalise Illegality: Bombay High Court Refuses to Shield Alleged Unauthorized Structure Beneficial Pension Scheme Cannot Be Defeated By Cut-Off Dates: Andhra Pradesh High Court Directs EPFO To Follow Sunil Kumar B. Guidelines On Higher Pension Claims Equity Aids the Vigilant, Not Those Who Sleep Over Their Rights: Punjab & Haryana High Court Refuses to Revive 36-Year-Old Pay Parity Claim Students Cannot Be Penalised For Legislative Invalidity: Supreme Court Protects Degrees Granted Before 2005 Yash Pal Verdict Restructuring Without Fulfilment of Conditions Cannot Defeat Insolvency: Supreme Court Reaffirms Default as the Sole Trigger Under Section 7 IBC Section 100-A CPC Slams The Door On Intra-Court Appeals In RERA Matters”: Allahabad High Court Declares Special Appeal Not Maintainable Mental Distance Between ‘May Be’ and ‘Must Be’ Is Long: Patna High Court Acquits Six in Murder Case Built on Broken Chain of Circumstances Where Corruption Takes Roots, Rule of Law Is Replaced by Rule of Transaction: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Bail to DIG Harcharan Singh Bhullar Mere Voter List and Corrected SSC Certificate Cannot Prove Paternity: Andhra Pradesh High Court Rejects 21-Year-Old Bid for DNA Test in Partition Appeal Section 147 NI Act Makes Offence Compoundable At Any Stage: Karnataka High Court Sets Aside Concurrent Convictions in Cheque Bounce Case After Settlement Bald Allegations of Adultery Based on Suspicion Cannot Dissolve a Marriage: Jharkhand High Court Once a Document Is Admitted in Evidence, Its Stamp Defect Cannot Be Reopened: Madras 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