Safety Shoes Used as Weapon Meets Mens Rea Requirement for Murder: Rajasthan HC on Bail Denial    |     Right to Be Considered for Promotion, Not a Right to Promotion: Supreme Court Clarifies Eligibility for Retrospective Promotion    |     Inherent Power of Courts Can Recall Admission of Insufficiently Stamped Documents: Supreme Court    |     Courts Cannot Substitute Their Opinion for Security Agencies in Threat Perception Assessments: J&K High Court Directs Reassessment of Political Leader's Threat Perception    |     Service Law | Violation of Natural Justice: Discharge Without Notice or Reason: Gauhati High Court Orders Reinstatement and Regularization of Circle Organizers    |     Jharkhand High Court Quashes Family Court Order, Reaffirms Jurisdiction Based on Minor’s Ordinary Residence in Delhi    |     Ex-Serviceman Status Ceases After First Employment in Government Job: Calcutta High Court Upholds SBI’s Cancellation of Ex-Serviceman's Appointment Over False Declaration of Employment    |     Maxim Res Ipsa Loquitur Applies When State Instrumentalities Are Directly Responsible: Delhi High Court Orders MCD to Pay ₹10 Lakhs Compensation for Death    |     Wilful Avoidance of Service Must Be Established Before Passing Ex Parte Order Under Section 126(2) CrPC: Patna High Court Sets Aside Ex Parte Maintenance Order    |     MP High Court Imposes Rs. 10,000 Costs for Prolonging Litigation, Upholds Eviction of Petitioners from Father's Property    |     When Detention Unnecessary Despite Serious Allegations of Fraud Bail Should be Granted: Kerala HC    |     Magistrate's Direction for Police Inquiry Under Section 202 CrPC Is Valid; Petitioner Must Await Investigation Outcome: Bombay High Court Dismisses Advocate's Petition as Premature    |     Relocation Alone Cannot Justify Transfer: Supreme Court Rejects Plea to Move Case from Nellore to Delhi, Orders Fresh Probe    |     Punjab & Haryana HC Double Bench Upholds Protection for Married Partners in Live-In Relationships, Denies Same for Minors    |     Tribunal’s Compensation Exceeding Claimed Amount Found Just and Fair Under Motor Vehicles Act: No Deduction Errors Warrant Reduction: Gujrat High Court    |     Smell of Alcohol in Post-Mortem Insufficient to Establish Intoxication: Rajasthan High Court Upholds Liability of Insurance Company in Motor Accident Case    |     No Grounds for Transfer: Free Bus Fare for Women in Telangana Reduces Travel Burden: Telangana High Court Rejects Wife's Petition to Transfer Divorce Case    |     Mechanical Referrals Invalid: "Deputy Registrar Must Apply Judicial Mind: Allahabad HC Quashes Deputy Registrar's Order in Arya Pratinidhi Sabha Election Dispute    |    

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