Magistrate's Direction for Police Inquiry Under Section 202 CrPC Is Valid; Petitioner Must Await Investigation Outcome: Bombay High Court Dismisses Advocate's Petition as Premature    |     Tribunal’s Compensation Exceeding Claimed Amount Found Just and Fair Under Motor Vehicles Act: No Deduction Errors Warrant Reduction: Gujrat High Court    |     When Two Accused Face Identical Charges, One Cannot Be Convicted While the Other is Acquitted: Supreme Court Emphasizes Principle of Parity in Acquittal    |     Supreme Court Limits Interim Protection for Financial Institutions, Modifies Order on FIRs Filed by Borrowers    |     Kerala High Court Grants Regular Bail in Methamphetamine Case After Delay in Chemical Analysis Report    |     No Sign of Recent Intercourse; No Injury Was Found On Her Body Or Private Parts: Gauhati High Court Acquits Two In Gang Rape Case    |     Failure to Disclose Relationship with Key Stakeholder Led to Setting Aside of Arbitral Award: Gujarat High Court    |     Strict Compliance with UAPA's 7-Day Timeline for Sanctions is Essential:  Supreme Court    |     PAT Teachers Entitled to Regularization from 2014, Quashes Prospective Regularization as Arbitrary: Himachal Pradesh High Court    |     Punjab and Haryana High Court Upholds Anonymity Protections for Victims in Sensitive Cases: Right to Privacy Prevails Over Right to Information    |     Certified Copy of Will Admissible Under Registration Act, 1908: Allahabad HC Dismisses Plea for Production of Original Will    |     Injuries on Non-Vital Parts Do Not Warrant Conviction for Attempt to Murder: Madhya Pradesh High Court Modifies Conviction Under Section 307 IPC to Section 326 IPC    |     Classification Based on Wikipedia Data Inadmissible; Tribunal to Reassess Using Actual Financial Records: PH High Court Orders Reconsideration of Wage Dispute    |     Mere Delay in Initiation Does Not Justify Reduction of Damages: Jharkhand High Court on Provident Fund Defaults    |     Legatee Can Continue Suit Without Probate, But Decree Contingent on Probate Approval: Orissa High Court    |     An Award that Shocks the Conscience of the Court Cannot Stand, Especially When Public Money is Involved: Calcutta HC Reduces Quantum by Half    |     Trademark Transaction Within Territoriality Principle Subject to Indian Tax Laws: Bombay High Court Dismisses Hindustan Unilever's Petition on Non-Deduction of TDS    |     Concealment of Material Facts Bars Relief under Article 226: SC Reprimands Petitioners for Lack of Bonafides    |     Without Determination of the Will's Genuineness, Partition is Impossible: Supreme Court on Liberal Approach to Pleading Amendments    |     Candidates Cannot Challenge a Selection Process After Participating Without Protest : Delhi High Court Upholds ISRO's Administrative Officer Recruitment    |     Invalid Bank Guarantee Invocation Found Fatal to Recovery Claim: Delhi High Court Dismisses GAIL’s Appeal    |     Adverse Remarks in APAR Recorded Without Objectivity and Likely Motivated by Bias: Delhi High Court Quashes Biased APAR Downgrade of CRPF Officer    |    

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.     

Similar News