Judicial Review Is Not A Substitute For Examiner’s Judgment: Delhi High Court Rejects DJSE Candidate’s Plea Over Alteration of Marks Part-Payments Extend Limitation - Each Payment Revives Limitation: Delhi High Court Non-Stamping Renders A Document Inadmissible, Not Void – Defect Is Curable Once Duty Is Paid: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Specific Performance MP High Court Upholds Ladli Behna Yojana Criteria; Rules Registration Deadlines and Age Limits Fall Under Executive Domain Criminal Courts Are Not Recovery Agents: Orissa High Court Grants Bail in ₹3.5 Crore Land Fraud Cases Citing Article 21 and Terminal Illness 304 Part I IPC | Sudden Fight Between Brothers Over Mud House Construction: Jharkhand High Court Converts Murder Conviction To Culpable Homicide When Rape Fails, Section 450 Cannot Stand: Orissa High Court Acquits Accused of House-Trespass After Finding Relationship Consensual Concurrent Eviction Orders Will Not Be Reopened Under Article 227: Madras High Court Section 128 Contract Act | Surety’s Liability Is Co-Extensive: Kerala High Court Upholds Recovery from Guarantors’ Salary Custodial Interrogation Not Warranted When Offences Are Not Punishable With Death or Life: Karnataka High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail to Deputy Tahsildar in Land Records Case Order VIII Rules 3 & 5 CPC | Silence Is Admission: State’s Failure To Specifically Deny Hiring Amounts To Acceptance: JK HC Consumer | No Complete Deficiency In Service — Excess Rainfall Also To Blame: Supreme Court Halves Compensation In Groundnut Seed Crop Failure Case Development Cannot Override The Master Plan: Supreme Court Nullifies Cement Unit CLU In Agricultural Zone Negative Viscera Report Is Not a Passport to Acquittal: Madras High Court Confirms Life Term of Parents for Poisoning Mentally Retarded Daughter Observations Have Had a Demoralising and Chilling Effect: Allahabad High Court Judge Recuses from Bail Matter After Supreme Court’s Strong Remarks Controversial YouTube Remarks On ‘Black Magic Village’ Not A Crime: Gauhati High Court Quashes FIR Against Abhishek Kar “Failure To Specifically Deny Allegations Amounts To Admission”: J&K High Court Reiterates Law Under Order VIII CPC Section 293 Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Examination of Expert When DNA Report Is Disputed: MP High Court Medical Evidence Trumps False Alibi: Allahabad HC Upholds Conviction In Matrimonial Murder Where Strangulation Was Masked By Post-Mortem Burning Helping Young Advocates Is Not A Favour – It Is A Need For A Better Justice System: Rajasthan High Court Section 82 Cr.P.C. | Mere Non-Appearance Does Not Ipsi Facto Establish Absconding: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets Aside Order Declaring Student Abroad as Proclaimed Person

Supreme Court Grants Bail, Upholds Fundamental Right to Liberty in NDPS Case

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India granted bail to Rabi Prakash in a Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) case, emphasizing the importance of upholding the fundamental right to liberty. The judgment, delivered by a bench comprising Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surya Kant and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dipankar Datta, highlighted the adverse impact of prolonged incarceration on an individual’s constitutional rights.

The case involved P.S. Case No. 91 of 2019, where Rabi Prakash was arrested on charges of violating Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act. After spending over three and a half years in custody, the petitioner sought bail, as the trial was still ongoing with only one out of 19 witnesses examined.

In their order, the Justices noted, “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 court acknowledged the significance of safeguarding individual liberties and recognized that the formation of an opinion on guilt should not be hastily made, considering the petitioner’s extended period of imprisonment.

While granting bail, the court imposed stringent conditions due to the petitioner not being a resident of Odisha, where the case was registered. The petitioner was directed to produce two local sureties and appear before the Trial Court on every hearing date. The court warned that any absence would be treated as a misuse of the bail granted.

This judgment reinforces the principle that the right to personal liberty is fundamental and should be protected, even in cases involving serious offenses. The Supreme Court’s decision reflects the delicate balance between individual rights and statutory provisions, demonstrating a commitment to ensuring justice while upholding constitutional guarantees.

The ruling is a significant development in the jurisprudence surrounding bail in NDPS cases and provides guidance for future matters where prolonged incarceration and the preservation of fundamental rights are at stake.

Supreme court emphasized, “The prolonged incarceration, generally militates against the most precious fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution,” underscoring the importance of protecting individual liberties.

This decision serves as a reminder of the judiciary’s duty to safeguard fundamental rights, even in cases where the statutory framework may restrict them. The court’s careful consideration of the petitioner’s prolonged custody and the necessity of conditional liberty sets a vital precedent for balancing the scales of justice.

Date of Decision: 13th July 2023

RABI PRAKASH  vs THE STATE OF ODISHA    

Latest Legal News