Appellate Court Can Allow Additional Evidence To Ensure Fair Adjudication Even If Not Produced In Trial: Madhya Pradesh High Court Police Can Freeze Bank Accounts Under Section 106 BNSS Upon Suspicion Of 'Proceeds Of Crime': Punjab & Haryana High Court 'No Penalty For Monthly MGQ Shortfall If Annual Target Met': Supreme Court Upholds Quashing Of Excise Department Demands For Liquor Licensees 'Murder Went Unavenged, But Courts Cannot Convict On Mere Assumptions': Supreme Court Acquits Accused In 1988 Murder Case, Quashes High Court's Remit Order 'NCSC Cannot Pass Mandatory Adjudicatory Orders Directing Payment Of Arrears': Supreme Court Clarifies Commission's Powers Under Article 338 "'Cannot Present Fait Accompli': Supreme Court Upholds Denial Of NOC To Airman For Skipping Prior Permission To Apply For Civil Post" Supreme Court Upholds 2017 Notification For Ex Post Facto Environmental Clearances, Quashes 2021 Office Memorandum As Impermissible Executive Overreach Workman Fails To Prove 240 Days Continuous Work; Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Denial Of Reinstatement For "Abandonment Of Service" Party Cannot Take Contradictory Stands In Same Case, Admissions In Pleadings Bind Them Under Order XII Rule 6 CPC: Telangana High Court Delayed Recovery Of Weapon From Open Space Casts Serious Doubt On Prosecution Story: Madhya Pradesh High Court Acquits Murder Convicts Procedural Irregularities By Public Servants Serve As Circumstantial Evidence Of Conspiracy In Corruption Cases: Kerala High Court Blaming Previous Counsel For Omission Does Not Satisfy 'Due Diligence' Test To Amend Plaint After Trial Commences: Punjab & Haryana High Court Muslim Man's Second Marriage Under Special Marriage Act Void Despite Personal Law Permitting Bigamy: Karnataka High Court Suppression Of Material Facts Regarding Criminal Antecedents Disentitles Accused To Discretionary Relief Of Bail: Orissa High Court Section 311 CrPC | Delay Or Absence Of Examination-In-Chief No Bar To Summon Material Witnesses: Allahabad High Court Revenue Authorities Lack Jurisdiction To Declare Genuineness Of Wills Or Validity Of Settlement Deeds; Parties Must Approach Civil Court: Andhra Pradesh High Court Demand Of Bribe Is Sine Qua Non For Conviction Under PC Act, Mere Recovery Of Tainted Money Not Enough: Bombay High Court Title And Ownership Irrelevant In Suit Under Section 6 Specific Relief Act; Plaint Liable To Be Rejected If Filed Beyond Six Months: Delhi High Court Receipt Of Pension By Widow Can Be Considered To Determine 'Just Compensation' But Not To Deprive Claimants Of Award: Calcutta High Court FSL Report Lacking Scientific Criteria And Data Is Inadmissible In Evidence: Allahabad High Court Issues Directives For Testing Viscera Standard Of Proof In Railway Accident Claims Is Preponderance Of Probabilities, Not Beyond Reasonable Doubt: Gujarat High Court No Second Statutory Appeal Lies Against Conviction By Appellate Court Reversing Acquittal; Revision Is Sole Remedy: Supreme Court Wives' Property Is Their Own, Not Husband's: Supreme Court REJECTS High Court's Succession Formula; Restores Clarity For Christian Inheritance

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