Readiness and Willingness Under Section 16(c) Is Not a Ritualistic Phrase — Plaintiff Must Prove It With Substance, Not Just Words: Karnataka High Court FIR in Disproportionate Assets Case Quashed: Patna High Court Slams SP for 'Non-Application of Mind' and 'Absence of Credible Source Information' Ownership of Vehicle Linked to Commercial Quantity of Heroin – Custodial Interrogation Necessary: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail under Section 482 BNSS Death Caused by Rash Driving Is Not a Private Dispute — No FIR Quashing on Basis of Compromise in Section 106 BNS Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court No Bank Can Override Court Orders: Rajasthan High Court Slams Axis Bank for Unauthorized Withdrawal from Court-Ordered FD" Indian Courts Cannot Invalidate Foreign Arbitral Awards Passed Under Foreign Law: Madhya Pradesh High Court Enforces Texas-Based Award Despite Commercial Court’s Contrary Decree Sudden Quarrel over Mound of Earth — Not Murder but Culpable Homicide: Allahabad High Court Eligibility Flows from Birth, Not a Certificate Date: Delhi High Court Strikes Down Rule Fixing Arbitrary Cut-Off for OBC-NCL Certificates in CAPF (AC) Recruitment Bar Under Order II Rule 2 CPC Cannot Be Invoked Where Specific Performance Was Legally Premature Due To Statutory Impediments: P&H High Court Calling Wife by Her Caste Name in Public Just Before Suicide is Immediate Cause of Self-Immolation: Madras High Court Upholds Husband’s Conviction Under Section 306 IPC No Work No Pay Is Not a Universal Rule: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dock Identification Without Prior TIP Is Absolutely Useless: P&H High Court Upholds Acquittal in Attempt to Murder Case Filing Forged Court Pleadings in Union Government’s Name is Criminal Contempt: Karnataka High Court Sentences Litigant to Jail Execution of Will Proved, But Probate Justly Denied Due to Concealment of Property Sale: Delhi High Court Mere Designation Doesn’t Establish Criminal Liability: Bombay High Court Quashes Proceedings Against ICICI Officials in Octroi Evasion Case Fraud on Power Voids the Order: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against Karnataka BJP Leader R. Ashoka, Slams Politically Motivated Prosecution Cause of Fire Is Immaterial If Fire Itself Is Insured Peril: Supreme Court Rebukes Insurer’s Repudiation Dragging a Trained Army Officer Up 20 Steps Without Resistance? The Story Lacks Credence: Supreme Court Upholds Acquittal in Army Officer’s Murder Semen Stains Alone Do Not Prove Rape: Supreme Court Acquits Doctor Accused of Rape No Mortgage, No SARFAESI: Supreme Court Rules Against NEDFi, Says Recovery Action in Nagaland Without Security Agreement Was Illegal Parity Cannot Be Denied by Geography: Supreme Court Holds Jharkhand Bound by Patna HC's Judgment, Orders Pay Revision for Industries Officer Once Power Flows Continuously from a Synchronized Turbine, It Is No Longer Infirm: Supreme Court Orders TANGEDCO to Pay Fixed Charges to Penna Electricity

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