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

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