MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

"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