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 Regular Bail, Upholds Right to Liberty in NDPS Case: 'Lengthy Custody Alone Deserves Concession'"

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a recent case , the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh has granted regular bail to the petitioner, Rahul Kumar, in an NDPS (Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances) case, emphasizing that the right to personal liberty is enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The judgment, delivered by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vikas Bahl, came as a relief to the petitioner, who had been in custody for over two years without the trial reaching its conclusion.

The case (CRM-M-32446-2023) pertains to FIR No. 108 dated 05.06.2021 registered under Sections 22-C of the NDPS Act, 1985 at Police Station Sirhind, District Fatehgarh Sahib.

The petitioner's counsel, Mr. G.S. Salana, argued that the prolonged custody and delay in concluding the trial warranted the grant of regular bail. He further highlighted that the petitioner was not involved in any other criminal case, making his continued incarceration a violation of his fundamental right to liberty.

The judgment cited several precedent-setting cases, including a recent order by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, where bail was granted to accused individuals based on the length of their custody. In one such ruling, the Supreme Court had stated, "We are inclined to release the petitioner on bail only on the ground that he has spent about two years in custody and conclusion of trial will take some time."

Taking these precedents into consideration, the High Court held that the petitioner's prolonged custody alone deserved the concession of regular bail. While granting bail, the court imposed certain conditions to ensure that the provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act were met, including non-tampering with evidence and non-intimidation of prosecution witnesses.

In its ruling, the court clarified that the grant of bail did not express any opinion on the merits of the case, and the trial would proceed independently. The judgment was widely hailed for upholding the right to personal liberty and providing relief to the petitioner after an extended period of custody.

Date of Decision: 14.07.2023

Rahul Kumar   vs State of Punjab   

Latest Legal News