Judicial Review Not Negated In Election Matters Where Level Playing Field Is Impaired By Violence: Supreme Court FIR Registration | Prospective Accused Has Locus Standi To Appeal Against Single Judge's Direction: Supreme Court Executing Deed Claiming Disputed Property Not 'False Document' Without Impersonation; Civil Disputes Can't Be Criminalised: Allahabad High Court Section 24 CPC | Partition Suit Can Be Transferred To High Court To Avoid Inconsistent Findings With Pending Testamentary Proceedings: Bombay High Court Upgraded Junior High Schools Lose Separate Legal Identity; Recruitment Under 1978 Rules Not Maintainable For Resulting Vacancies: Allahabad High Court Section 370 IPC | Consent Of Victim Is Irrelevant For Proving Trafficking; High Court Sustains Conviction Despite Acquittal Under Section 370A(2) Section 307 IPC | Absence Of Bodily Injury Does Not Exclude Offence If Intention Or Knowledge Is Established From Surrounding Circumstances: Delhi High Court Income Tax Reopening | Assessing Officer Cannot Initiate Reassessment Based On Third-Party Allegations Without Establishing Direct Nexus With Assessee: Gujarat High Court Section 294 CrPC | Non-Examination Of Autopsy Doctor Not Fatal To Prosecution When Post-Mortem Report's Genuineness Is Undisputed: Karnataka High Court Section 25 Arms Act | Mere Custody Without Awareness Not An Offence, 'Conscious Possession' Essential: Delhi High Court Quashes FIR Over Single Live Cartridge Section 20 Prevention Of Corruption Act | Statutory Presumption Cannot Be Triggered Without Proof Of Demand; Mere Recovery Insufficient: Himachal Pradesh High Court Article 227 Constitution of India | High Court Cannot Sit In Appeal Over Findings Of Tribunal Under Supervisory Jurisdiction: Kerala High Court Mere Registration Of Will Does Not Dispense With Requirement To Prove Execution Under Section 68 Evidence Act: Madras High Court Insurance Policy Exclusion | Onus To Prove Suicide Can Be Discharged By Circumstantial Evidence And Unexplained Discrepancies In Medical Records: NCDRC Registration Act | Contested Decree Declaring Pre-Existing Rights By Adverse Possession Does Not Require Compulsory Registration Or Stamp Duty: Madhya Pradesh High Court Section 100 Patents Act | Government Empowered To Authorise Manufacture Of Patented Life-Saving Drugs For Non-Commercial Distribution To Patients: Kerala High Court Madras High Court Slaps ₹1 Lakh Cost On Centre Over Botched Prisoner Repatriation Contempt Of Court | Bona Fide Efforts To Verify Credentials Preclude Finding Of 'Wilful Disobedience': Telangana High Court Financial Commissioner Cannot Remand Appointment Of Lambardar Without Finding Perversity In Collector’s Order: Punjab & Haryana High Court Article 226 | High Court Cannot Act As Second Appellate Authority Over Transfer Orders; Judicial Review Permissible Only On Four Limited Grounds: Rajasthan High Court Drugs and Cosmetics Act | Prosecution Must Prove Possession And Lack Of Licence Through Independent Evidence; Failure Of Panch Witnesses Is Fatal: Telangana High Court Section 392 IPC | Appellate Courts Can Reduce Sentence To Period Already Undergone Considering Protracted Litigation And Lack Of Criminal Antecedents: Punjab & Haryana High Court

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

07 May 2024 2:49 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