Magistrate's Direction for Police Inquiry Under Section 202 CrPC Is Valid; Petitioner Must Await Investigation Outcome: Bombay High Court Dismisses Advocate's Petition as Premature    |     Tribunal’s Compensation Exceeding Claimed Amount Found Just and Fair Under Motor Vehicles Act: No Deduction Errors Warrant Reduction: Gujrat High Court    |     When Two Accused Face Identical Charges, One Cannot Be Convicted While the Other is Acquitted: Supreme Court Emphasizes Principle of Parity in Acquittal    |     Supreme Court Limits Interim Protection for Financial Institutions, Modifies Order on FIRs Filed by Borrowers    |     Kerala High Court Grants Regular Bail in Methamphetamine Case After Delay in Chemical Analysis Report    |     No Sign of Recent Intercourse; No Injury Was Found On Her Body Or Private Parts: Gauhati High Court Acquits Two In Gang Rape Case    |     Failure to Disclose Relationship with Key Stakeholder Led to Setting Aside of Arbitral Award: Gujarat High Court    |     Strict Compliance with UAPA's 7-Day Timeline for Sanctions is Essential:  Supreme Court    |     PAT Teachers Entitled to Regularization from 2014, Quashes Prospective Regularization as Arbitrary: Himachal Pradesh High Court    |     Punjab and Haryana High Court Upholds Anonymity Protections for Victims in Sensitive Cases: Right to Privacy Prevails Over Right to Information    |     Certified Copy of Will Admissible Under Registration Act, 1908: Allahabad HC Dismisses Plea for Production of Original Will    |     Injuries on Non-Vital Parts Do Not Warrant Conviction for Attempt to Murder: Madhya Pradesh High Court Modifies Conviction Under Section 307 IPC to Section 326 IPC    |     Classification Based on Wikipedia Data Inadmissible; Tribunal to Reassess Using Actual Financial Records: PH High Court Orders Reconsideration of Wage Dispute    |     Mere Delay in Initiation Does Not Justify Reduction of Damages: Jharkhand High Court on Provident Fund Defaults    |     Legatee Can Continue Suit Without Probate, But Decree Contingent on Probate Approval: Orissa High Court    |     An Award that Shocks the Conscience of the Court Cannot Stand, Especially When Public Money is Involved: Calcutta HC Reduces Quantum by Half    |     Trademark Transaction Within Territoriality Principle Subject to Indian Tax Laws: Bombay High Court Dismisses Hindustan Unilever's Petition on Non-Deduction of TDS    |     Concealment of Material Facts Bars Relief under Article 226: SC Reprimands Petitioners for Lack of Bonafides    |     Without Determination of the Will's Genuineness, Partition is Impossible: Supreme Court on Liberal Approach to Pleading Amendments    |     Candidates Cannot Challenge a Selection Process After Participating Without Protest : Delhi High Court Upholds ISRO's Administrative Officer Recruitment    |     Invalid Bank Guarantee Invocation Found Fatal to Recovery Claim: Delhi High Court Dismisses GAIL’s Appeal    |     Adverse Remarks in APAR Recorded Without Objectivity and Likely Motivated by Bias: Delhi High Court Quashes Biased APAR Downgrade of CRPF Officer    |    

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 

Similar News