UDCPR | Municipal Authorities Empowered To Grant Relaxation For Recreational Open Spaces In Redevelopment Projects: Bombay High Court Appellate Court Can Enhance Compensation Under Motor Vehicles Act Even Without Cross-Appeal By Claimants: Allahabad High Court State Instrumentalities Cannot Supplement Reasons For Withholding Public Money Via Affidavits Years Later: Calcutta High Court Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act | Victim's Status As 'Illegal Immigrant' Does Not Dilute Offence Or Shield Perpetrator: Bombay High Court Clubbing Of Criminal Trials | No Basis To Direct Consolidation If Connected Proceedings Have Already Concluded: Delhi High Court IBC ‘Clean Slate’ Principle Cannot Extinguish Pre-existing Crystallized Liability Under Labour Awards: Bombay High Court Section 406 IPC | 'Donation' Does Not Constitute 'Entrustment'; Criminal Prosecution Quashed In Absence Of Aggrieved Victim: Delhi High Court Failure To Deliver Possession Of Plot Constitutes "Continuous Wrong" Giving Rise To Recurrent Cause Of Action Under Consumer Protection Act: Delhi State Commission High Court Cannot Entertain Writ Petition Under Article 226 When Statutory Appellate Remedy Under Section 107 CGST Act Is Available: Gujarat High Court Appointment Of Temple Servants Is The Exclusive Prerogative Of The Hereditary Trustee: Kerala High Court Stay Of Suit Proceedings Under CPC Does Not Automatically Bar Adjudication Of Pending Temporary Injunction Application: Rajasthan High Court Section 136A MV Act | Supreme Court Directs States To Impound Vehicles With Unpaid E-Challans And Mandates Electronic Enforcement Compliance Section 115 CPC | Executing Court Cannot Dismiss Execution Petition On Hyper-Technical Grounds Regarding LRs Of Judgment Debtor: Himachal Pradesh High Court Succession Act | Will Not Validly Executed If Attesting Witness Admits Signing Without Witnessing Testator’s Signature: Madras High Court High Court Cannot Interfere Under Article 227 To Correct Errors Of Fact Or Act As An Appellate Court: Madhya Pradesh High Court Advocates Act 1961 | Bar Council Has No Power To Suspend Advocate Pending Disciplinary Enquiry: Allahabad High Court Identification Of Accused By Police Personnel In Pitch Darkness Without Prior Acquaintance Is Unreliable: Himachal Pradesh High Court Body Shaming Or Insulting Physical Appearance Does Not Per Se Constitute Offence Under Section 509 IPC: Karnataka High Court Drishyam 3 | Interim Injunction To Restrain Film Release Cannot Be Granted Without Establishing Clear Subsisting Legal Right: Madras High Court Town Planning Scheme | Statutory Notice To Occupiers Under Rule 12(2)(a) Punjab Municipal Rules Is Mandatory And Independent Of Notice To Owner: Punjab & Haryana 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 

 

Latest Legal News