The Power Under Order XXXVIII, Rule 5 CPC is Drastic and Extraordinary; Should Not Be Exercised Mechanically or Merely for the Asking: Calcutta High Court Telangana High Court Strikes Down Section 10-A: Upholds Transparency in Public Employment Absence of Homogeneous Mixing and Procedural Deficiencies Vitiate NDPS Conviction: Punjab and Haryana High Court Business Disputes Cannot Be Given Criminal Color: Patna High Court Quashes Complaint in Trademark Agreement Case Gujarat High Court Appoints Wife as Guardian of Comatose Husband, Calls for Legislative Framework Standard of Proof in Professional Misconduct Requires 'Higher Threshold' but Below 'Beyond Reasonable Doubt: Delhi High Court Imprisonment Cannot Bar Education: Bombay HC Allows UAPA Accused to Pursue LL.B. High Court Acquits Accused in Double Murder Case, Asserts ‘Suspicion Cannot Replace Proof’ Long separation and irreparable breakdown of marriage must be read as cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act: Andhra Pradesh High Court Regulation 101 Applies to All Aided Institutions, Including Minority Ones, Says Allahabad High Court Fraud Unravels All Judicial Acts : Jharkhand High Court Orders Demolition of Unauthorized Constructions in Ratan Heights Case Suspicious Circumstances Cannot Validate a Will: Himachal Pradesh High Court Upholds 1997 Will Over 2000 Will Calcutta High Court Allows Amendment of Pleadings Post-Trial: Necessary for Determining Real Questions in Controversy Exaggerated Allegations in Matrimonial Disputes Cause Irreparable Suffering, Even Acquittal Can't Erase Scars: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against Relatives in Matrimonial Dispute Consent Requires Active Deliberation; False Promise of Marriage Must Be Proximate Cause for Sexual Relations: Supreme Court Urgency Clause in Land Acquisition for Yamuna Expressway Upheld: Supreme Court Affirms Public Interest in Integrated Development Interest Rate of 24% Compounded Annually Held Excessive; Adjusted to Ensure Fairness in Loan Transactions: AP HC Prosecution Under IPC After Factories Act Conviction Violates Article 20(2): Bombay High Court Join Our Exclusive Lawyer E News WhatsApp Group! Conversion for Reservation Benefits Is a Fraud on the Constitution: Supreme Court Rejects SC Certificate for Reconverted Christian Patent Office Guidelines Must Be Followed for Consistency in Decisions: Madras High Court Limitation Cannot Obstruct Justice When Parties Consent to Extensions: Madhya Pradesh High Court Additional Fees Are Incentives, Not Penalties: Orissa High Court Upholds Central Motor Vehicles Rules Amendment Interpretation of Tender Eligibility Criteria Lies with Tendering Authority: Gujrat High Court Upholds Discharge of Tender Complaints Were Contradictory and Did Not Establish Prima Facie Case for SC/ST Act Charges: J&K HC Insurance Cover Notes Hold Policy Validity Unless Proven Otherwise: Kerala High Court Upholds Compensation in Fatal Accident Case Article 21 Of Constitution Applies Irrespective Of Nature Of Crime. Prolonged Incarceration Without Trial Amounts To Punishment Without Adjudication: Calcutta HC Concept Of 'Liberal Approach' Cannot Be Used To Jettison The Substantive Law Of Limitation: Delhi High Court Limitation is Not Always a Mixed Question of Fact and Law: Bombay High Court Dismisses 31-Year-Old Specific Performance Suit as Time-Barred

High Court Grants Bail in NDPS Case, Stresses ‘Innocent Until Proven Guilty’”

31 August 2024 12:26 PM

By: sayum


Court orders bail for Lalchan Naik, accused in case involving 48 kgs of ganja, emphasizing prolonged detention and completed investigation. In a significant decision, the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati granted bail to Lalchan Naik, accused in a major narcotics case. Justice K. Sreenivasa Reddy emphasized the principle of presumption of innocence, highlighting the completion of the investigation and the petitioner’s prolonged incarceration as key factors in the decision.

The case against Lalchan Naik, also known as Lakshman Naik, arose on March 2, 2024, when he was arrested along with co-accused for illegal possession and transportation of 48 kgs of ganja. The prosecution alleged that Naik and his associates were transporting the ganja from Orissa to Bangalore, and that they were paid Rs. 10,000 each for their involvement. Following their arrest by the Tangutur Police Station, Naik and the other accused were remanded to judicial custody.

Justice K. Sreenivasa Reddy noted that Naik had been in custody since his arrest on March 2, 2024, and that the investigation had been completed, with the only remaining step being the filing of the charge sheet. The court acknowledged the seriousness of the offence under Section 8 © read with 20(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, but also recognized the need to balance this with the rights of the accused.

The court found that the seizure of the ganja, based on the mediators’ report and the confessions obtained, provided a prima facie case against Naik. However, the court stressed the importance of not prejudging the case before the trial, underlining the principle of ‘innocent until proven guilty.’

In granting bail, the court referenced the completed investigation and the prolonged period of pre-trial detention. “The petitioner has been in jail for over four months, and the investigation has concluded. The prolonged detention without the filing of a charge sheet violates the rights of the accused,” Justice Reddy stated. The conditions for bail included a personal bond of Rs. 10,000 and regular appearances before the Station House Officer.

Justice K. Sreenivasa Reddy remarked, “The petitioner herein/Accused No.2 shall be released on bail on his executing a personal bond for Rs.10,000/- with two sureties for a like sum each. This decision underscores the judiciary’s commitment to upholding the rights of individuals while ensuring that the law takes its course.”

The High Court’s decision to grant bail to Lalchan Naik in this NDPS Act case underscores the balance the judiciary seeks to maintain between the enforcement of drug laws and the protection of individual rights. By focusing on the completion of the investigation and the principle of presumption of innocence, the judgment highlights the legal safeguards in place for accused individuals. This decision will likely influence future cases where the timely filing of charge sheets and the rights of the accused are in question.

Date of Decision: 23rd July, 2024

Lalchan Naik @ Lakshman Naik vs. The State Of Andhra Pradesh

Similar News