Trial Courts Must Award Just Compensation In POCSO Cases Beyond Fine Amounts; Interim Payment No Reason To Deny Final Relief: Madras High Court Section 482 CrPC Power Not For Conducting 'Mini-Trial'; Disputed Facts Must Be Adjudicated At Trial: Allahabad High Court Right To Walk On Demarcated Footpaths Is A Fundamental Right; Municipal Authorities Under Enforceable Duty To Provide Pedestrian Infrastructure: Supreme Court Right To Walk Is A Fundamental Right Under Articles 19(1)(d) & 21; Priority Over Motorised Vehicles: Supreme Court Municipal Commissioner Is Disciplinary Authority For All Employees Post-1993 Amendment; Existing Regulations Can't Fetter Statutory Power: Supreme Court High Court Cannot Force Plaintiff To Accept Monetary Compensation Instead Of Removal Of Encroachment Without Prayer: Supreme Court Recruitment Merit Is Not A Vested Right; Public Interest Justifies Disclosing Marks Of Candidates Outside Selection Zone: Supreme Court Special Police Establishment Not An 'Intelligence & Security Organisation', State Cannot Exempt It From RTI Act: Supreme Court Medical Practitioner Not Negligent Merely Because Result Was A Failure If Procedure Adopted Was Acceptable To Medical Science: Calcutta High Court Long Service Cannot Be Denied Regularization On Mere Technicalities If Appointment Wasn't Illegal: Andhra Pradesh High Court Rejection Of Nomination Paper Can Only Be Challenged Through Election Petition; Article 329(b) Bars Writ Jurisdiction: Supreme Court NI Act | Benefit Of Presumptions Under Sections 118 & 139 Not Available If Complainant Lacks Direct Knowledge Of Transaction: Kerala High Court Landowners Entitled To Solatium Under National Highways Act; Failure To Grant Is Ground To Challenge Award Under Section 34: MP High Court Transfer Policy Only Broad Guideline, Not Enforceable Under Article 226/227 In Absence Of Mala Fides: Rajasthan High Court

Prolonged Incarceration Generally Militates Against the Most Precious Fundamental Right Guaranteed Under Article 21,” Punjab and Haryana HC Grants Bail in NDPS Case

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant judgment by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Justice Pankaj Jain has granted bail to Roshan Singh, who had been incarcerated for over a year without trial, in a case involving the alleged possession of 230 kg of poppy husk. The court emphasized the importance of safeguarding fundamental rights against prolonged incarceration.

Roshan Singh was arrested on March 13, 2023, following a police operation that led to the recovery of a substantial quantity of poppy husk from a truck in which he was a passenger. Singh, who was neither the driver nor the owner of the vehicle, had been detained under various sections of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act). His co-accused had been granted bail earlier, and Singh’s continued detention raised significant legal questions, particularly concerning the application of Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, which pertains to bail.

The court meticulously reviewed precedents set by the Supreme Court concerning bail under the NDPS Act, especially in cases of prolonged custody. Citing cases like Rabi Prakash v. State of Odisha and Mohammad Salman Hanif Shaikh v. State of Gujarat, Justice Jain noted that prolonged incarceration, especially when the trial has yet to commence, contravenes Article 21 of the Constitution, which protects life and personal liberty.

Custody Duration and Trial Delay: Singh had already spent over a year in custody with no commencement of trial proceedings or witness examinations, which tilts the balance in favor of granting bail.

Comparison with Co-accused: The co-accused, having similar roles, were previously granted bail, which brought up considerations of parity and fairness.

Conditions Under Section 37 of the NDPS Act: The court found that while Section 37 imposes stringent conditions for bail in NDPS cases, the actual circumstances, including the lack of criminal antecedents and the specifics of Singh’s involvement, supported a decision to grant bail.

Concluding its observations, the court ordered the release of Roshan Singh on bail, subject to several stringent conditions aimed at ensuring his presence at the trial and preventing any obstruction of justice. These conditions include not changing his phone number without court permission, not committing any offense while on bail, and surrendering his passport.

Date of Decision: May 2, 2024

Roshan Singh v. State of Haryana

Latest Legal News