Order Denying Permission for Peaceful Protest Rally Set Aside: Calcutta High Court Prolonged Custody Alone Cannot Justify Bail In Cases Involving Heinous Crimes: Delhi High Court Body Shaming and Sexually Colored Remarks Are Unacceptable In A Civilized Society: Kerala High Court No Mandatory Injunction Where Failure to Prove Ownership and Possession: Punjab and Haryana High Court Supreme Court Dismisses Article 32 Petition Seeking Declaration of Bombay High Court Judgment as Illegal Specific Relief Act | Power to Extend Time Under Section 28 Is Discretionary and Must Be Exercised Prudently: Supreme Court Failure To Comply With Statutory Mandate Under Order 39 Rule 3 CPC Renders Ex Parte Injunction Unsustainable: Karnataka High Court Bombay High Court Dismisses PIL Challenging Withdrawal of Cabinet's Recommendations for Legislative Council Nominations Supreme Court Reduces Murder Conviction to Culpable Homicide in Absence of Premeditation and Motive Desertion Means More Than Physical Separation, Includes Willful Neglect: Delhi High Court Director’s Liability Under Section 138 NI Act Ends with Resignation: Supreme Court Quashes Complaint Against Former Director in Cheque Dishonor Case No Proof, No Ownership: Punjab & Haryana HC Dismisses Baseless Inheritance Suit Judicial Orders of Civil Courts Not Amenable to Article 226 Writ Jurisdiction: Patna High Court Chastity of a Woman Is a Priceless Possession; Unfounded Allegations Justify Wife’s Right to Live Separately: Orissa High Court Temporary Injunction Denied Based on Unstamped and Unregistered Agreement: Madhya Pradesh High Court Temple Surplus Funds Cannot Be Used for Shopping Complex Construction: Madras High Court Bail | Evidence Is Primarily Documentary And Already Recovered, Custodial Interrogation Of The Accused Is Not Necessary: Kerala High Court Delhi High Court Directs Respondents to Secure ₹157.75 Crores in Gas Supply Dispute Under Section 9 of Arbitration Act Arrest of Woman Post-Sunset Without Prior Judicial Permission Illegal: Bombay High Court

"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

Similar News