Cruelty Need Not Be Physical: Mental Agony and Emotional Distress Are Sufficient Grounds for Divorce: Supreme Court Section 195 Cr.P.C. | Tribunals Are Not Courts: Private Complaints for Offences Like False Evidence Valid: Supreme Court Limitation | Right to Appeal Is Fundamental, Especially When Liberty Is at Stake: Supreme Court Condones 1637-Day Delay FIR Quashed | No Mens Rea, No Crime: Supreme Court Emphasizes Protection of Public Servants Acting in Good Faith Trademark | Passing Off Rights Trump Registration Rights: Delhi High Court A Minor Procedural Delay Should Not Disqualify Advances as Export Credit When Exports Are Fulfilled on Time: Bombay HC Preventive Detention Must Be Based on Relevant and Proximate Material: J&K High Court Terrorism Stems From Hateful Thoughts, Not Physical Abilities: Madhya Pradesh High Court Denies Bail of Alleged ISIS Conspiracy Forwarding Offensive Content Equals Liability: Madras High Court Upholds Conviction for Derogatory Social Media Post Against Women Journalists Investigation by Trap Leader Prejudiced the Case: Rajasthan High Court Quashes Conviction in PC Case VAT | Notice Issued Beyond Limitation Period Cannot Reopen Assessment: Kerala High Court Fishing Inquiry Not Permissible Under Section 91, Cr.P.C.: High Court Quashes Trial Court’s Order Directing CBI to Produce Unrelied Statements and Case Diary Vague and Omnibus Allegations Cannot Sustain Criminal Prosecution in Matrimonial Disputes: Calcutta High Court High Court Emphasizes Assessee’s Burden of Proof in Unexplained Cash Deposits Case Effective, efficient, and expeditious alternative remedies have been provided by the statute: High Court Dismisses Petition for New Commercial Electricity Connection Permissive Use Cannot Ripen into Right of Prescriptive Easement: Kerala High Court High Court Slams Procedural Delays, Orders FSL Report in Assault Case to Prevent Miscarriage of Justice Petitioner Did Not Endorse Part-Payments on Cheque; Section 138 NI Act Not Attracted: Madras High Court Minority Christian Schools Not Bound by Rules of 2018; Disciplinary Proceedings Can Continue: High Court of Calcutta Absence of Receipts No Barrier to Justice: Madras High Court Orders Theft Complaint Referral Under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C Rajasthan High Court Emphasizes Rehabilitation, Grants Probation to 67-Year-Old Convicted of Kidnapping" P&H High Court Dismisses Contempt Petition Against Advocate Renuka Chopra: “A Frustrated Outburst Amid Systemic Challenges” Kerala High Court Criticizes Irregularities in Sabarimala Melsanthi Selection, Orders Compliance with Guidelines Non-Payment of Rent Does Not Constitute Criminal Breach of Trust: Calcutta High Court Administrative Orders Cannot Override Terminated Contracts: Rajasthan High Court Affirms in Landmark Decision Minimum Wage Claims Must Be Resolved by Designated Authorities Under the Minimum Wages Act, Not the Labour Court: Punjab and Haryana High Court Madras High Court Confirms Equal Coparcenary Rights for Daughters, Emphasizes Ancestral Property Rights Home Station Preferences Upheld in Transfer Case: Kerala High Court Overrules Tribunal on Teachers' Transfer Policy Failure to Formally Request Cross-Examination Does Not Invalidate Assessment Order: Calcutta High Court

High Court Grants Bail to First-Time Offender in NDPS Case: Emphasizes Right to Speedy Trial

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana granted bail to Nirmal Kaur, a petitioner implicated under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS Act), 1985. The decision, dated January 10, 2024, underscores the right to a speedy trial as a pivotal factor in bail considerations.

Justice Jasjit Singh Bedi, presiding over the case, emphasized the applicability of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which guarantees the right to a speedy trial. "The rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act can be diluted to an extent in view of the salutary provisions of Article 21 of the Constitution of India," Justice Bedi noted in the judgment.

Nirmal Kaur was arrested following a raid that led to the recovery of Alprazolam tablets and intoxicant powder. The petitioner's counsel, Mr. G.S. Simble, argued that the mandatory provisions of Sections 42 and 50 of the NDPS Act were not duly followed, and Kaur was falsely implicated in the absence of independent witnesses during the search and seizure.

The State counsel opposed the bail plea, citing the recovery of a commercial quantity of contraband, but acknowledged that Kaur was a first-time offender and had been in custody since July 7, 2021.

Referencing Supreme Court precedents in similar cases, Justice Bedi observed, "In the instant case, the petitioner is stated to be in custody since 07.07.2021 and 13 out of the 17 prosecution witnesses have been examined so far. She is also a first-time offender with no other case registered against her."

The court's decision to grant bail was based on several factors, including the length of Kaur's custody, her status as a first-time offender, and the slow progress of the trial. Kaur is directed to furnish bail bonds and surety bonds, report monthly to the police station, and deposit an FDR of Rs.2,00,000/- with the Trial Court.

 Date of Decision: 10 January 2024

Nirmal Kaur VS State of Punjab 

 

Similar News