Writ Jurisdiction Not Appropriate For Adjudicating Complex Title Disputes; Mutation Entries Do Not Confer Ownership: Madhya Pradesh High Court Joint Account Holder Not Liable Under Section 138 NI Act If Not A Signatory To Dishonoured Cheque: Allahabad High Court Private Individuals Accepting Money Can Be Prosecuted Under MPID Act; Nomenclature As 'Loan' Irrelevant: Supreme Court Nomenclature Of Transaction As 'Loan' Irrelevant; If Ingredients Met, It Is A 'Deposit' Under MPID Act: Supreme Court Pleadings Must State Material Facts, Not Evidence; Deficiency In Pleading Cannot Be Raised For First Time In Appeal: Supreme Court Denial Of Remission Cannot Rest Solely On Heinousness Of Crime; Justice Doesn't Permit Permanent Incarceration In Shadow Of Worst Act: Supreme Court Second Application For Rejection Of Plaint Barred By Res Judicata If Earlier Order Attained Finality: Supreme Court Section 6(5) Hindu Succession Act Is A Saving Clause, Not A Jurisdictional Bar To Partition Suits: Supreme Court Sale Of Natural Gas Via Common Carrier Pipelines Is An Inter-State Sale; UP Has No Jurisdiction To Levy VAT: Supreme Court Mediclaim Reimbursement Not Deductible From Motor Accident Compensation; Tortfeasor Can’t Benefit From Claimant’s Prudence: Supreme Court Rules Of Procedure Are Handmaid Of Justice, Not Mistress; Striking Off Defence Under Order XV Rule 5 CPC Is Not Mechanical: Supreme Court Power To Strike Off Tenant's Defense Under Order XV Rule 5 CPC Is Discretionary, Not To Be Exercised Mechanically: Supreme Court Areas Urbanised Before 1959 Don't Require Separate Notification To Fall Under Delhi Rent Control Act: Delhi High Court Police Cannot Freeze Bank Accounts To Perform Compensatory Justice; Direct Nexus With Offence Essential: Bombay High Court FSL Probe Before Electronic Evidence Meets Section 65B Admissibility Standards: Gujarat High Court Court Shouldn't Adjudicate Rights At Stage Of Granting Leave Under Section 92 CPC, Only Prima Facie Case Required: Allahabad High Court Right To Seek Bail Based On Non-Furnishing Of 'Grounds Of Arrest' Applies Only Prospectively From November 6, 2025: Madras High Court Prior Exposure To Accused Before TIP Renders Identification Meaningless: Delhi High Court Acquits Four In Uphaar Cinema Murder Case No Particular Format Prescribed For 'Proposed Resolution' In No-Confidence Motion; Intention Of Members To Be Gathered From Document As A Whole: Orissa High Court Trial Court Cannot Grant Temporary Injunction Without Adverting To Allegations Of Fraud And Collusion: Calcutta High Court "Ganja" Definition Under NDPS Act Excludes Roots & Stems: Karnataka High Court Grants Bail As Seized Weight Included Whole Plants Right To Speedy Trial Under Article 21 Doesn't Displace Section 37 NDPS Mandate In Commercial Quantity Cases: Orissa 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   

Latest Legal News