Consensual Relationship That Later Turns Sour Is Not Rape: Andhra Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in Breach of Promise Case Double Presumption of Innocence Applies; No Interference Unless Trial Court Judgment Is Perverse: Allahabad High Court in Murder Appeal Under BNSS A Single Act of Corruption Warrants Dismissal – 32 Years of Service Offers No Immunity: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds ASI’s Removal Suit Against Trustee Without Charity Commissioner’s Consent Is Statutorily Barred: Bombay High Court Government Can't Deny Implied Surrender After Refusing to Accept Possession: Madras HC Clarifies Scope of Section 111(f) of TP Act Custodial Interrogation Must Prevail Over Pre-Arrest Comfort in Hate Speech Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail for Provocative Remarks Against Migrants Mutation Order Without Notice Cannot Stand in Law: Orissa High Court Quashes Tahasildar's Rejection for Violating Natural Justice Cruelty Must Be Grave and Proven – Mere Allegations of Disobedience or Demand for Separate Residence Don’t Justify Divorce: Jharkhand High Court Rejects Husband’s Divorce Appeal Retaliatory Prosecution Cannot Override Liberty: Himachal Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in PMLA Case Post CBI Trap of ED Officer Illegal Remand Without Production of Accused Is Not a Technical Lapse, But a Constitutional Breach: Andhra Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in Major NDPS Case Inherent Power Under Section 528 BNSS Not a Substitute for Article 226 When FIR Is Under Challenge Without Chargesheet or Cognizance Order: Allahabad High Court Possession Without Title Is Legally Insubstantial: Gujarat HC Dismisses Appeal By Dairy Cooperative Over Void Land Transfer You Can Prosecute a Former Director, But You Can’t Force Him to Represent the Company: Calcutta High Court Lays Down Clear Limits on Corporate Representation in PMLA Cases Conviction Cannot Rest on Tainted Testimony of Injured Witnesses in Isolation: Bombay High Court Acquits Five in Murder Case One Attesting Witness is Sufficient if He Proves Execution and Attestation of Will as Required by Law: AP High Court Land Acquisition | Delay Cannot Defeat Just Compensation: P&H High Court Grants Enhanced Compensation Despite 12-Year Delay in Review Petitions by Landowners Allegations Implausible, Motivated by Malice: Kerala High Court Quashes Rape Case After Finding Abuse Claims a Counterblast to Civil Dispute Adoptions Under Hindu Law Need No Approval from District Magistrate: Madras High Court Declares Administrative Rejection of Adoptive Birth Certificate as Illegal Findings of Fact Cannot Be Re-Appreciated in an Appeal Under Section 10F Companies Act: Madras High Court Equality Is Not A Mechanical Formula, But A Human Commitment: P&H High Court Grants Visually Impaired Mali Retrospective Promotions With Full Benefits Orissa High Court Rules Notice for No Confidence Motion Must Include Both Requisition and Resolution – Provision Held Mandatory Ashramam Built on Private Land, Managed by Family – Not a Public Religious Institution: Andhra Pradesh High Court Quashes Endowments Notification Cruelty Must Be Proved, Not Presumed: Gujarat High Court Acquits Deceased Husband In 498A Case After 22 Years Trade Dress Protection Goes Beyond Labels: Calcutta High Court Affirms Injunction Over Coconut Oil Packaging Mimicry Mere Filing of Income Tax Returns Does Not Exonerate the Accused: Madras High Court Refuses Discharge to Wife of Public Servant in ₹2 Crore DA Case

Solely Implicated Based On The Disclosure Statement Of  Co-Accused: High Court Grants Bail in NDPS Case

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a recent decision, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana granted regular bail to Akashdeep Singh, who was implicated in a drug case under the stringent Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Jasjit Singh Bedi, presiding over the matter, observed that “further incarceration of the petitioner is not required,” marking a pivotal moment in the case that has garnered attention due to its implications on bail laws in NDPS cases.

The petitioner was seeking bail in connection with FIR No.43, registered at Police Station Kahnuwan, District Gurdaspur, under Sections 22 and later 29 of the NDPS Act, 1985. The case pivoted on the fact that Akashdeep Singh was solely implicated based on the disclosure statement of a co-accused, with no corroborative evidence or recovery from him.

In his judgement, Justice Bedi noted, “the petitioner is named in the disclosure statement of his co-accused and no recovery whatsoever has been effected from him.” This observation was crucial in determining the course of the trial, as it underscored the lack of direct evidence against the petitioner.

The court’s decision was also influenced by various precedents where bail was granted under similar circumstances. These cases emphasized the importance of corroborative evidence in addition to a co-accused’s disclosure, a principle that played a significant role in this judgement.

Advocates Rajesh Kapila and Himani Kapila represented the petitioner, while Deputy Advocate General Ms. Ramta K Chaudhary represented the State of Punjab. Their arguments highlighted the nuances of the NDPS Act and the importance of personal liberty in bail considerations.

The judgement is seen as a beacon of hope for those implicated in NDPS cases on tenuous grounds. It underscores the judiciary’s balanced approach in upholding the rights of the accused while considering the seriousness of the allegations. As the trial continues, this ruling will undoubtedly be a significant reference point for future bail applications under the NDPS Act.

Date of Decision: 07 November 2023

Akashdeep Singh. VS State of Punjab.     

Latest Legal News