Readiness and Willingness Under Section 16(c) Is Not a Ritualistic Phrase — Plaintiff Must Prove It With Substance, Not Just Words: Karnataka High Court FIR in Disproportionate Assets Case Quashed: Patna High Court Slams SP for 'Non-Application of Mind' and 'Absence of Credible Source Information' Ownership of Vehicle Linked to Commercial Quantity of Heroin – Custodial Interrogation Necessary: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail under Section 482 BNSS Death Caused by Rash Driving Is Not a Private Dispute — No FIR Quashing on Basis of Compromise in Section 106 BNS Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court No Bank Can Override Court Orders: Rajasthan High Court Slams Axis Bank for Unauthorized Withdrawal from Court-Ordered FD" Indian Courts Cannot Invalidate Foreign Arbitral Awards Passed Under Foreign Law: Madhya Pradesh High Court Enforces Texas-Based Award Despite Commercial Court’s Contrary Decree Sudden Quarrel over Mound of Earth — Not Murder but Culpable Homicide: Allahabad High Court Bar Under Order II Rule 2 CPC Cannot Be Invoked Where Specific Performance Was Legally Premature Due To Statutory Impediments: P&H High Court Calling Wife by Her Caste Name in Public Just Before Suicide is Immediate Cause of Self-Immolation: Madras High Court Upholds Husband’s Conviction Under Section 306 IPC No Work No Pay Is Not a Universal Rule: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dock Identification Without Prior TIP Is Absolutely Useless: P&H High Court Upholds Acquittal in Attempt to Murder Case Filing Forged Court Pleadings in Union Government’s Name is Criminal Contempt: Karnataka High Court Sentences Litigant to Jail Execution of Will Proved, But Probate Justly Denied Due to Concealment of Property Sale: Delhi High Court Mere Designation Doesn’t Establish Criminal Liability: Bombay High Court Quashes Proceedings Against ICICI Officials in Octroi Evasion Case Fraud on Power Voids the Order: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against Karnataka BJP Leader R. Ashoka, Slams Politically Motivated Prosecution Cause of Fire Is Immaterial If Fire Itself Is Insured Peril: Supreme Court Rebukes Insurer’s Repudiation Dragging a Trained Army Officer Up 20 Steps Without Resistance? The Story Lacks Credence: Supreme Court Upholds Acquittal in Army Officer’s Murder Semen Stains Alone Do Not Prove Rape: Supreme Court Acquits Doctor Accused of Rape No Mortgage, No SARFAESI: Supreme Court Rules Against NEDFi, Says Recovery Action in Nagaland Without Security Agreement Was Illegal Parity Cannot Be Denied by Geography: Supreme Court Holds Jharkhand Bound by Patna HC's Judgment, Orders Pay Revision for Industries Officer Once Power Flows Continuously from a Synchronized Turbine, It Is No Longer Infirm: Supreme Court Orders TANGEDCO to Pay Fixed Charges to Penna Electricity

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 

 

Latest Legal News