Electricity Act 2003 | Section 56(2) Does Not Preclude Licensee From Raising Supplementary Demand After Two Years; Only Restricts Right To Disconnect: Supreme Court Dissolution Of Partnership At Will | Outgoing Partner Entitled To Market Value Of Assets As On Date Of Distribution, Not Date Of Dissolution: Supreme Court SEBI | Release Of Escrow Under Buyback Regulations Does Not Preclude Independent Inquiry Into Fraud Under PFUTP Regulations: Supreme Court Promotion Based On Merit Does Not Wipe Out Past Adverse Records But Must Be Balanced In FR 56(j) Compulsory Retirement: Supreme Court Appellate Court Can Convict For Offence Even If Charge Not Framed By Trial Court Under Section 464 CrPC: Supreme Court Extradition | Sovereign Assurance Does Not Override Judicial Sentencing; Cannot Be Used To Artificially Accelerate Sentence Completion: Supreme Court Article 21 | State Has A Positive Duty To Protect Public Health By Implementing Front-Of-Package Labelling Regulations: Supreme Court Revenue Entries Are Not Documents Of Title, Cannot Replace Substantive Evidence In Property Disputes: Supreme Court Long Possession Without Hostile Animus Does Not Amount To Adverse Possession: Supreme Court Administrative Discretion Must Comply With Article 14; Subsequent Executive Decisions Cannot Retroactively Cure Failure Of Timely Performance: Supreme Court Municipal Corporation Cannot Unilaterally Downgrade Market Value Of Land Acquired For Road Widening To Deny TDR Certificates: Andhra Pradesh High Court Execution Of Agreement To Sell Does Not Automatically Terminate Existing Tenancy: Allahabad High Court Writ Jurisdiction Not Maintainable When Title To Property Is Under A Cloud And Subject Matter Of Disputed Facts: Andhra Pradesh High Court Amendment Of Plaint Seeking Impleadment Of Third Parties And Addition Of Time-Barred Claims In A Partition Suit Cannot Be Permitted: Bombay High Court Reassessment Order Does Not Result In Merger Of Original Assessment Order If Issues Are Distinct: Andhra Pradesh High Court GST Assessment Order Uploaded Only Under 'Additional Notices' Tab Without Separate Intimation Violates Principles Of Natural Justice: Calcutta High Court 'Prolonged Inaction' Cannot Be Rewarded: Delhi High Court Upholds CESTAT Refusal To Condone 968-Day Delay In Filing Customs Appeal Probate No Longer Mandatory To Establish Rights Under A Will Following 2025 Amendment To Indian Succession Act: J&K High Court Review Jurisdiction Cannot Be Used To Introduce New Factual Foundations Or Reopen Concluded Arbitral Awards: Karnataka High Court High Court Cannot Invoke Article 227 To Strike Off Plaint When Statutory Remedy Under Order VII Rule 11 CPC Is Available: Madras High Court Section 58 BNSS | Detention Beyond 24 Hours Without Magistrate’s Authority Vitiates Arrest And Subsequent Remand: Orissa High Court Arbitrator Is The Sole Judge Of Quality And Quantity Of Evidence, Court Cannot Act As Court Of Appeal: Punjab & Haryana High Court Section 5 Limitation Act | Court Cannot Condone Delay In A Mechanical Manner Without Ascertaining Bona Fides Of The Applicant: Calcutta High Court High Court Cannot Quash FIR Under Section 482 CrPC By Conducting Mini-Trial On Merits: Punjab & Haryana High Court Taxation Law | Mere Assertion Of Natural Justice Violation On Disputed Facts Won't Bypass Statutory Appeal: Delhi High Court

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