Consensual Relationship That Later Turns Sour Is Not Rape: Andhra Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in Breach of Promise Case Double Presumption of Innocence Applies; No Interference Unless Trial Court Judgment Is Perverse: Allahabad High Court in Murder Appeal Under BNSS A Single Act of Corruption Warrants Dismissal – 32 Years of Service Offers No Immunity: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds ASI’s Removal Suit Against Trustee Without Charity Commissioner’s Consent Is Statutorily Barred: Bombay High Court Government Can't Deny Implied Surrender After Refusing to Accept Possession: Madras HC Clarifies Scope of Section 111(f) of TP Act Custodial Interrogation Must Prevail Over Pre-Arrest Comfort in Hate Speech Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail for Provocative Remarks Against Migrants Mutation Order Without Notice Cannot Stand in Law: Orissa High Court Quashes Tahasildar's Rejection for Violating Natural Justice Cruelty Must Be Grave and Proven – Mere Allegations of Disobedience or Demand for Separate Residence Don’t Justify Divorce: Jharkhand High Court Rejects Husband’s Divorce Appeal Retaliatory Prosecution Cannot Override Liberty: Himachal Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in PMLA Case Post CBI Trap of ED Officer Illegal Remand Without Production of Accused Is Not a Technical Lapse, But a Constitutional Breach: Andhra Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in Major NDPS Case Inherent Power Under Section 528 BNSS Not a Substitute for Article 226 When FIR Is Under Challenge Without Chargesheet or Cognizance Order: Allahabad High Court Possession Without Title Is Legally Insubstantial: Gujarat HC Dismisses Appeal By Dairy Cooperative Over Void Land Transfer You Can Prosecute a Former Director, But You Can’t Force Him to Represent the Company: Calcutta High Court Lays Down Clear Limits on Corporate Representation in PMLA Cases Conviction Cannot Rest on Tainted Testimony of Injured Witnesses in Isolation: Bombay High Court Acquits Five in Murder Case One Attesting Witness is Sufficient if He Proves Execution and Attestation of Will as Required by Law: AP High Court Land Acquisition | Delay Cannot Defeat Just Compensation: P&H High Court Grants Enhanced Compensation Despite 12-Year Delay in Review Petitions by Landowners Allegations Implausible, Motivated by Malice: Kerala High Court Quashes Rape Case After Finding Abuse Claims a Counterblast to Civil Dispute Adoptions Under Hindu Law Need No Approval from District Magistrate: Madras High Court Declares Administrative Rejection of Adoptive Birth Certificate as Illegal Findings of Fact Cannot Be Re-Appreciated in an Appeal Under Section 10F Companies Act: Madras High Court Equality Is Not A Mechanical Formula, But A Human Commitment: P&H High Court Grants Visually Impaired Mali Retrospective Promotions With Full Benefits Orissa High Court Rules Notice for No Confidence Motion Must Include Both Requisition and Resolution – Provision Held Mandatory Ashramam Built on Private Land, Managed by Family – Not a Public Religious Institution: Andhra Pradesh High Court Quashes Endowments Notification Cruelty Must Be Proved, Not Presumed: Gujarat High Court Acquits Deceased Husband In 498A Case After 22 Years Trade Dress Protection Goes Beyond Labels: Calcutta High Court Affirms Injunction Over Coconut Oil Packaging Mimicry Mere Filing of Income Tax Returns Does Not Exonerate the Accused: Madras High Court Refuses Discharge to Wife of Public Servant in ₹2 Crore DA Case

Prolonged Incarceration Must Be Considered Dehors Bar of Section 37 NDPS Act – Punjab and Haryana High Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a landmark judgment today, the Punjab and Haryana High Court underscored the significance of personal liberty and the consideration of prolonged incarceration in bail applications under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS Act). Hon'ble Mr. Justice Pankaj Jain, while delivering the verdict in the case of Shivam Kumar versus the State of Punjab, emphasized that "the prolonged incarceration, generally militates against the most precious fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution."

The court granted regular bail to the petitioner, Shivam Kumar, in case FIR No. 325, registered under Section 22(c) of the NDPS Act, who had been in custody for nearly three years. In a detailed judgment, Justice Jain noted the need to consider the prolonged duration of incarceration as a significant factor, irrespective of the statutory bar under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.

Advocates Mr. Tanvir Joshi, representing the petitioner, and Mr. Jashandeep Singh, AAG, Punjab, presented their arguments, with the court ultimately siding with the petitioner's plea for bail.

The decision aligns with several precedents set by the Supreme Court of India, which were duly referenced in the judgment. Notably, cases like Rabi Prakash Vs. The State of Odisha, Mohammad Salman Hanif Shaikh Vs. The State of Gujarat, and others were cited, all highlighting the judiciary's stance on personal liberty and the impact of extended periods of imprisonment on the accused.

This judgment is seen as a significant move towards upholding the rights of undertrials, particularly in cases governed by stringent laws like the NDPS Act. The court's observation about the "conditional liberty" overriding statutory embargoes underlines the judiciary's growing concern over undertrials facing prolonged incarceration without trial.

Legal experts view this judgment as a reaffirmation of the constitutional right to life and personal liberty, especially in the context of bail under the NDPS Act. The court's decision sets a precedent for future cases, ensuring that the duration of custody remains a pivotal factor in the judicial process.

Date of Decision: 15 November 2023

Shivam Kumar VS State of Punjab 

Latest Legal News