Cognizance Is of the Offence, Not the Offender: Madras High Court Rejects Challenge to ED’s Supplementary Complaint in PMLA Case Acquittal in Rajasthan No Bar to Trial in Madhya Pradesh: MP High Court Rejects Double Jeopardy Plea in Antiquities Theft Case 20% Deposit Isn’t Automatic in Cheque Bounce Appeals: Right to Appeal Can’t Be Priced Out: Punjab & Haryana High Court Checks Mechanical Use of Section 148 NI Act A Child Is Not a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets New Benchmark in Compensation for Minors’ Deaths 90 Days Is Not Sacrosanct – Courts Can Permit Reply to Counter-Claim Even Beyond Prescribed Time in Interest of Justice: Punjab & Haryana High Court Magistrate Can Proceed Only for Offences Committed in India Until Sanction Is Obtained for Acts Outside India: Orissa High Court on International Financial Fraud Award Is Vitiated by Non-Consideration of Material Evidence: Orissa High Court Sets Aside Industrial Tribunal’s Wage Award in IMFA Case POCSO | Absence of Child's Name in Birth Certificate Not Fatal: Kerala High Court No One Has the Right to Impute Illicit Motives to Judges in the Name of Free Speech: Karnataka High Court Jails Man for Criminal Contempt DV Complaint Cannot Be Quashed at Threshold Under Article 227: Madras High Court Refuses to Interfere, Directs Accused to Seek Remedy Before Magistrate Recovery Wasn't From Accused's Exclusive Knowledge — Cylinder Already Marked in Site Plan Before Arrest: Allahabad High Court Acquits Man in Murder Case Setting Fire to House Where Only Minors Were Present is a Heinous Offence – No Quashing Merely Because Parties Settled: Calcutta High Court No Exclusive Possession Means Licence, Not Lease: Calcutta High Court Rules City Civil Court Has Jurisdiction to Evict Licensees Defendant's Own Family Attested the Sale Agreement – Yet She Called It Nominal: Andhra Pradesh High Court Upholds Specific Performance Renewal Not Automatic, No Evidence Of Notice Or Mutual Agreement: AP High Court Dismisses Indian Oil’s Appeal Against Eviction When Death Is Caused by an Unforeseeable Forest Fire, Criminal Prosecution Cannot Be Sustained Without Proof of Rashness, Negligence, or Knowledge: Supreme Court Proof of Accident Alone is Not Enough – Claimants Must Prove Involvement of Offending Vehicle Under Section 166 MV Act: Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal for Compensation in Fatal Road Accident Case Income Tax | Search Means Search, Not ‘Other Person’: Section 153C Collapses When the Assessee Himself Is Searched: Karnataka High Court Draws a Clear Red Line License Fee on Hoardings is Regulatory, Not Tax; GST Does Not Bar Municipal Levy: Bombay High Court Filing Forged Bank Statement to Mislead Court in Maintenance Case Is Prima Facie Offence Under Section 466 IPC: Allahabad High Court Upholds Summoning Continued Cruelty and Concealment of Infertility Justify Divorce: Chhattisgarh High Court Upholds Divorce Disguising Punishment as Simplicity Is Abuse of Power: Delhi High Court Quashes Dismissals of Civil Defence Volunteers for Being Stigmatic, Not Simpliciter Readiness and Willingness Under Section 16(c) Is Not a Ritualistic Phrase — Plaintiff Must Prove It With Substance, Not Just Words: Karnataka High Court FIR in Disproportionate Assets Case Quashed: Patna High Court Slams SP for 'Non-Application of Mind' and 'Absence of Credible Source Information' Ownership of Vehicle Linked to Commercial Quantity of Heroin – Custodial Interrogation Necessary: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail under Section 482 BNSS Death Caused by Rash Driving Is Not a Private Dispute — No FIR Quashing on Basis of Compromise in Section 106 BNS Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court No Bank Can Override Court Orders: Rajasthan High Court Slams Axis Bank for Unauthorized Withdrawal from Court-Ordered FD"

"Prolonged Incarceration Must Override Statutory Bar Under NDPS Act," Rules Punjab & Haryana High Court

24 August 2024 3:06 PM

By: sayum


Punjab & Haryana High Court has granted regular bail to Gurinder Singh, accused under the NDPS Act, after noting the extensive period of custody he has already undergone and the sluggish pace of his trial. The decision, delivered by Justice Kirti Singh, highlights the importance of balancing statutory restrictions with the constitutional rights of the accused, particularly in cases where trial delays lead to prolonged incarceration.

The case against Gurinder Singh arose from an FIR registered on January 19, 2022, based on secret information alleging his involvement in the smuggling and transportation of poppy husk. The police reportedly recovered 75 kgs of poppy husk from Gurinder Singh and his father, Bhola Singh, during a vehicle check. Both were arrested at the scene. The petitioner has been in custody since his arrest and has faced charges under Sections 15, 29, 61, and 85 of the NDPS Act.

Justice Kirti Singh noted that Gurinder Singh had been in custody for over 19 months, with the trial showing little progress. Charges were framed almost two years ago, on September 29, 2022, yet only three out of 17 prosecution witnesses had been examined. The court expressed concern over the protracted trial, which was likely to continue for a significant period.

In her decision, Justice Singh referenced several Supreme Court rulings that addressed the issue of prolonged incarceration under the NDPS Act. Notably, she cited the Supreme Court’s decision in Rabi Prakash v. State of Odisha, where it was held that prolonged incarceration could override the statutory embargo of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, which typically restricts the granting of bail in such cases.

The court acknowledged the serious nature of the charges but emphasized that the right to a speedy trial is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution. The court also took into account that Gurinder Singh had no prior criminal record and that the trial's delay was not attributable to any actions on his part. The balance, therefore, tilted in favor of granting bail, as continued detention would constitute an excessive infringement on his personal liberty.

Justice Kirti Singh, echoing the principles laid down in earlier Supreme Court rulings, stated, "The prolonged incarceration generally militates against the most precious fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution and in such a situation, conditional liberty must override the statutory embargo created under Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act."

The High Court’s decision to grant bail to Gurinder Singh underscores the judiciary's role in safeguarding individual liberties, even in cases involving severe allegations under stringent laws like the NDPS Act. The ruling reflects the court's commitment to ensuring that statutory provisions do not eclipse the fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution, particularly the right to a speedy trial. This judgment could influence future cases, encouraging a more nuanced approach to bail applications in the context of delayed trials.

Date of Decision: August 20, 2024

Gurinder Singh v. State of Punjab

Latest Legal News