Section 106 IEA Cannot Fill the Gaps in a Shaky Prosecution Case: Rajasthan High Court Rebukes Investigative Lapses in Murder Trial Accident Claim | Ration Card Cannot Decide a Man’s Age: Punjab & Haryana High Court Forgery in Wife’s Name and Defiance of Court Orders Amount to Contempt: Kerala High Court Limitation | Selectively Active Litigant Cannot Seek Liberal Condonation: Delhi High Court Refuses to Revive 1589 Days’ Delay Mere Unnatural Death Within Seven Months Is Not Dowry Death: Delhi High Court Refuses to Reverse Acquittal in Ruby Hanging Case A Partition Suit Is a Suit for Land: Bombay High Court Rejects Plaint for Want of Clause XII Leave Senior Citizens Act Cannot Be A Shortcut To Reclaim Property Registered In Wife's Name: Bombay High Court State Bound By Its Concession; More Meritorious Candidates Cannot Be Denied Appointment: Supreme Court Balances Equity In Rajasthan Grade III Teacher Recruitment Penalty For Delayed Compensation Is The Employer's Personal Fault — Insurance Company Cannot Be Made To Pay For The Employer's Own Default: Supreme Court Bail Cannot Be a Mechanical Exercise in Murder and Atrocities Cases: Supreme Court Cancels Bail Granted on ‘Extraneous Considerations’ Even A Lathi Becomes A Murder Weapon When Repeatedly Aimed At The Head With Bone-Deep Force: Supreme Court Applies The Virsa Singh Test To Demolish The Defence That Lathis Are Not Deadly Weapons Section 149 IPC While Demanding Proof Of Individual Fatal Blow Runs Contrary To The Very Principle Of Vicarious Liability: Supreme Court Statement Under Section 108 Is Substantive Evidence If Voluntary:  Supreme Court Upholds Conviction In Smuggling Case U.P. Anti-Conversion Act Does Not Apply To Interfaith Live-In Relationships Unless Actual Conversion Is Intended: Allahabad High Court Section 480(6) BNSS | If Trial Is Not Concluded Within Sixty Days… Such Person Shall Be Released On Bail: MP High Court Bombay High Court Lifts Stay on Banks’ Fraud Proceedings Against Anil Ambani Preventive Detention Cannot Survive Without Supplying Relied Upon Documents: Karnataka High Court Reasserts Article 22(5) Safeguards Court Subordinate Who Attended Duty Drunk, Abused Advocates & Misbehaved With Judge's Family Gets No Mercy: Andhra Pradesh High Court Upholds Removal From Service XXXVII Rule 3 CPC | Claim Of 24% Interest Without Prima Facie Contract Cannot Be Blindly Accepted In Summary Proceedings : Madras High Court On Summary Suit Defence Re-Testing Under NDPS Act Cannot Be a Tool to Overcome an Adverse Lab Report: J&K High Court Quashes Charge-Sheet After First Report Ruled Out Heroin Shocking And Disturbing That Cows Died Due To Starvation: Kerala High Court Pulls Up Travancore Devaswom Board Over Neglect Of Temple Gosala Promoter Cannot Retain Ownership By Merely Using The Word ‘Lease’: Bombay High Court Upholds Ownership Deemed Conveyance Under MOFA

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