Suppression Of Material Facts Regarding Criminal Antecedents Disentitles Accused To Discretionary Relief Of Bail: Orissa High Court Section 311 CrPC | Delay Or Absence Of Examination-In-Chief No Bar To Summon Material Witnesses: Allahabad High Court Revenue Authorities Lack Jurisdiction To Declare Genuineness Of Wills Or Validity Of Settlement Deeds; Parties Must Approach Civil Court: Andhra Pradesh High Court Demand Of Bribe Is Sine Qua Non For Conviction Under PC Act, Mere Recovery Of Tainted Money Not Enough: Bombay High Court 'Promotion Effected Long Ago Not To Be Disturbed': Supreme Court Sets Aside HC Order Quashing 13-Year-Old Promotion; Holds 'Laying Rules' Directory Not Mandatory "Mere Oral Assertion Or 'Data Loss' Letter Not Enough To Prove Driving Licence Validity; Owner Has Strict Duty To Ensure Renewal": Supreme Court Reinstates Insurer's Non-Liability, Applies 'Pay & Recover' Principle "Zero Tolerance To Corruption": Supreme Court Reinstates FIRs Against Karnataka Cops, Slams High Court For 'Mini-Trial' & Exceeding S.482 CrPC Powers ‘Ancillary Services Don't Override Carriage’: Supreme Court Upholds 7.5% Presumptive Income For Cruise Operators Under Section 44B IT Act, Rejects Revenue's Higher Tax Claim Division Bench Refuses To Quash FIR, Holds It Cannot Nullify Single Judge's Final Order Directing Registration Of Case: Allahabad High Court High Court Leave Under Clause XII Doesn't Protect Transferred Suits; Section 16 CPC Strictly Applies To City Civil Court In 'Suits For Land': Bombay High Court Joint Account Holder Who Didn't Sign The Dishonoured Cheque Cannot Be Prosecuted Under Section 138 NI Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court Suits Cannot Be Consolidated If Parties, Properties, And Causes Of Action Are Different: Telangana High Court P&H High Court Halts All Construction In Mohali's Shivalik Foothills Over Failure To Demarcate 'Forest Land', Bars Land Sale No Embargo On Issuing Single Statutory Notice Under Section 138 NI Act For Multiple Dishonoured Cheques: Orissa High Court District Collector Has No Jurisdiction Under CrPC To Order Reopening Of Investigation Or Recall Of Closure Report: Madhya Pradesh High Court No Exclusive Monopoly Over Geographical Term 'Malabar' In Isolation; Protection Limited To Registered Composite Marks: Kerala High Court Person In 'De Facto' Control Is A Promoter Under Companies Act Even If Designated As Professional Director: Karnataka High Court Supreme Court Urges Mandatory Animal Tagging, Strict Enforcement of Gaushala Laws To Tackle Stray Cattle Crisis; Holds Owners Accountable "Don't Render Victims Remediless": Supreme Court Slams High Court For Dismissing Plea Over Stray Bull Death, Awards ₹15 Lakh Compensation Supreme Court Red-Flags 'Unregulated Shadow Work' of Private Investigators, Calls For Legislative Overhaul on Digital Evidence & Privacy Rights 125 CrPC | Wife 'Not Entitled To Interim Maintenance If Adultery Established Ex Facie': Supreme Court Evidence Against Absconder Invalid Without Prior S.299 CrPC Order: SC Acquits Murder Accused Ad Valorem Court Fee Mandatory For Section 54 Appeals Challenging Land Acquisition Awards: Supreme Court

"Punjab and Haryana High Court Grants Bail, Cites Extended Custody as Grounds for Release

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a recent ruling, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has granted regular bail to a petitioner in a case under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985. The decision, dated 09.10.2023, emphasizes the extended period of custody as a significant factor in granting bail, in line with previous Supreme Court and High Court precedents.

"We are inclined to release the petitioner on bail only on the ground that he has spent about two years in custody and conclusion of trial will take some time,"** states the High Court decision, echoing sentiments expressed in previous judgments.

The petitioner, Ankur Kumar Mohingya, had been in custody since 28.12.2021, and his case pertained to FIR No. 1205 under Section 20 of the NDPS Act at Police Station Sadar Karnal, District Karnal.

The court's decision, referring to several similar cases, underscores the importance of considering the length of custody when evaluating bail applications in NDPS Act cases. This aspect of the decision reflects a commitment to upholding the right to a speedy trial, as enshrined under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.

While the decision does not express an opinion on the case's merits, it highlights the need for the trial to proceed independently, ensuring a fair legal process.

The court has imposed specific conditions for the petitioner's bail, which include not tampering with evidence, refraining from intimidating witnesses, and appearing before the trial court as required. The decision also warns of the consequences of breaching these conditions, emphasizing the right balance between personal liberty and maintaining the integrity of the judicial process.

This ruling adds to the growing body of jurisprudence in India, emphasizing that the duration of custody can be a compelling factor in granting bail in NDPS Act cases, as long as other conditions and legal requirements are met.

Date of Decision: 09.10.2023

Ankur Kumar Mohingya vs. State of Haryana 

Latest Legal News