Minor in Live-In Relationship Deemed 'Child in Need of Care' by High Court, Protection Ordered Under Juvenile Justice Act Cheque Signed, Sealed, and Bounced – No Escape from Liability: Delhi High Court Right to Defend Includes Right to Inspect Documents: Calcutta High Court Overrules Trial Court's Rejection of Inspection Petition Court Cannot Tinker with Finalized Consolidation Scheme Under Section 42: Punjab and Haryana High Court Remarriage During Appeal Period is Risky, But Not Void: Andhra Pradesh High Court State Cannot Sleep Over Its Rights: Supreme Court Criticizes Odisha Government for Delayed Appeals in Pension Dispute “Both Hands Intact” Rule is a Relic of the Past: Supreme Court Grants MBBS Admission to Disabled Student Terminal Benefits and Family Pension Alone Do Not Bar Compassionate Appointment, But Financial Distress Must Be Proven – Supreme Court Cruelty Under Section 498A IPC Is Not Limited to Dowry Harassment: Supreme Court Right to Speedy Trial Cannot Be Defeated by Delay Tactics: Punjab & Haryana High Court Orders Fast-Tracking of Cheque Bounce Case Framing Charges Under Section 193 IPC Without Following Section 340 CrPC is Illegal: Calcutta High Court Doctrine of Part Performance Under Section 53-A TPA Not Applicable Without Proof of Possession: Andhra Pradesh High Court Mere Allegations of False Implication Cannot Override Strong Forensic and Documentary Evidence: Delhi High Court Upholds Conviction in Elderly Woman’s Murder and Robbery Case Applicant Not a Sexual Predator, Relationship Was Consensual: Bombay High Court Grants Bail in POCSO Case Fraudulent Transfers to Evade Creditors Cannot Escape Scrutiny: Punjab & Haryana High Court Restores Execution Petition Gujarat High Court Rules That Contractual Employees Cannot Claim Regularization of Services Serious Charges and Victim’s Suicide Justify Continued Detention: Gauhati High Court Denies Bail in POCSO Case No Permanent Establishment in India, Rejects Notional Income Taxation: Delhi High Court Rules in Favor of Nokia OY Statutory Bail Under NDPS Act Can Be Denied If FSL Report Reaches Court Before Bail Plea": Calcutta High Court Termination After Acquittal is Unjust: Bombay High Court Quashes Dismissal of Shikshan Sevak, Orders 50% Back Wages Denial of MBBS Seat Due to Administrative Lapses is Unacceptable": Andhra Pradesh High Court Awards ₹7 Lakh Compensation to Wronged Student Sessions Court Cannot Reclassify Non-Bailable Offences While Granting Anticipatory Bail: Allahabad High Court

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   

Similar News