District Judiciary Retirement Age | Supreme Court Directs Enhancement To 62 Years To Arrest Attrition Of Judicial Talent Slogans Inciting Armed Rebellion Or Challenging Sovereignty Cannot Be Equated With Religious Expressions: Allahabad High Court Denies Bail Revisional Authority Under AP ROR Act Has Jurisdiction To Direct Inquiry Into Illegal Transfers Of Assigned Land: Andhra Pradesh High Court Indian Law Does Not Recognise 'Joint Parenting' As A Statutory Concept; Child Welfare Remains Paramount: Bombay High Court Order 26 Rule 9 CPC | Court Must Appoint Survey-Knowing Commissioner In Suits Alleging Physical Encroachment And Boundary Disputes: Calcutta High Court Section 33-C(2) ID Act | Labour Court Has Jurisdiction To Recover Consequential Benefits Arising From CAT Orders: Delhi High Court Order VIII Rule 1-A(3) CPC | Procedural Law Is Meant For Advancement Of Justice; Technicalities Should Not Scuttle Opportunity To Lead Evidence: Himachal Pradesh High Court High Court Can Condition Condonation Of Delay In Land Acquisition Appeals Upon Waiver Of Interest For Delayed Period: Bombay High Court Employees Compensation Act | Insurance Company Not Liable To Indemnify Penalty Imposed On Employer Under Section 4-A(3)(b): Himachal Pradesh High Court Employees’ Compensation Act | Failure To Frame Issue On Employer-Employee Relationship Vitiates Commissioner’s Award: Kerala High Court Default Bail Under Section 187 BNSS | Period Of Investigation Depends On Substance Of Allegations In FIR, Not Merely Mentioned Sections: Madhya Pradesh High Court SARFAESI Act | Forfeiture Of Earnest Money Deposit Must Be Challenged Under Section 17 Before DRT, Not Via Writ Petition: Kerala High Court

Prolonged Incarceration Not Justified: Punjab and Haryana High Court Grants Bail in NDPS Case

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Punjab and Haryana High Court, in a judgment emphasized the importance of personal liberty and granted bail to the petitioner in a case registered under Section 22 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act). The judgment, delivered by HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN, highlighted the undue delay in the petitioner's incarceration and the lack of criminal antecedents.

The High Court considered the argument presented by the petitioner's counsel, who pointed out that an unauthorized officer had conducted the search before an authorized officer arrived, raising questions about the legality of the search.

Justice Pankaj Jain referred to several recent Supreme Court orders in similar cases to support the decision. He quoted from one such order, stating, "The prolonged incarceration, generally militates against the most precious fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution, and in such a situation, the conditional liberty must override the statutory embargo created under Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act."

The judgment also referred to other cases where bail was granted to individuals who had spent a considerable time in custody, further emphasizing the principle that liberty should not be unduly restricted.

The High Court, while granting bail, imposed specific conditions on the petitioner to ensure that he does not misuse the liberty granted. These conditions include not tampering with evidence, attending all court dates, not committing any further offenses, depositing any passport with the trial court, and providing contact information to the police authorities.

The judgment serves as a reminder of the importance of safeguarding personal liberty, especially in cases where individuals have been in custody for extended periods without trial. It underscores the need for a balanced approach to justice, ensuring that the fundamental right to liberty is respected even in cases involving serious offenses.

Date of Decision: October 17, 2023

Balvir Chand vs State of Punjab

Latest Legal News