Lethargy Is Not an Exceptional Circumstance: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Striking Off of Defence for Delay in Filing Written Statement Vague Decree of Injunction Can’t Be Executed by Attaching Machines: Rajasthan High Court Strikes Down Execution Order Mere permission to join proceedings without allowing filing of written statement is illusory: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets Aside Ex Parte Proceedings Unregistered Power of Attorney Can’t Transfer Property: MP High Court Denies Title, Dismisses Ejectment Suit Mere Non-Recovery of Weapon Is Not Fatal When Circumstantial and Medical Evidence Prove Guilt Beyond Doubt: Allahabad High Court Failure to Examine Gazetted Officer and Magistrate Who Certified Seizure Goes to Root of Fair Trial Under NDPS Act : Calcutta High Court Tender Years Doctrine Is No Longer Good Law: Delhi High Court Slams Mother’s Custody Claim Built on Parental Alienation Negation of Bail is the Rule in NDPS Cases Involving Commercial Quantity: Himachal Pradesh High Court Denies Bail Single Stab Injury in Heat of Passion During Sudden Quarrel Is Not Murder: Kerala High Court Section 10 CPC Inapplicable To Labour Court Proceedings; Stay Of Individual Disputes Denied: Karnataka High Court 138 NI Act | Once Issuance and Signature on Cheque Are Admitted, Burden Shifts on Accused to Dislodge Statutory Presumption: Madras High Court Confession Cannot Substitute Proof: Bombay High Court Acquits Husband Convicted of Wife’s Murder "Sole Eyewitness Testimony, Corroborated by Medical and Recovery Evidence, Is Enough to Sustain Conviction Under Section 302 IPC: Allahabad High Court Partition Once Effected Cannot Be Reopened on Vague Allegations of Fraud: Andhra Pradesh High Court Upholds Registered Family Partition Deed Cancellation of Land Acquisition Compensation Without Allegation or Hearing Is Arbitrary: Supreme Court Restores Compensation to Innocent Land Owner Whether Act Was in Discharge of Official Duty Is a Question of Fact — Magistrate, Not High Court, Must Decide: Supreme Court Restricts Writ Interference in BNSS Cases Section 175(4) BNSS | Affidavit Is Not Optional — Even Complaints Against Public Servants Must Follow Procedural Rigour: Supreme Court Magistrate Cannot Be Directed to Recall His Judicial Order by a Writ Court: Supreme Court Warns Against Article 226 Interference in Pending Criminal Proceedings Even In Absence of Written Demand, If Substantial Dispute Exists or Is Apprehended, Reference Under Section 10 ID Act Is Valid: Supreme Court Absence of Classical Signs of Strangulation and Possibility of Hanging Nullifies Homicidal Theory: Supreme Court Holds Medical Evidence Alone Cannot Prove Guilt Confession Must Be Direct Acknowledgment of Guilt, Not Mere Presence at Scene: Supreme Court Slams Misuse of Section 164 CrPC Reversal of Acquittal Without Dislodging Trial Court’s Reasoning Is Impermissible: Supreme Court Restores Acquittal

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