Back
M. S. KARNIK
Antonio Ramos – Appellant
Versus
State of Goa – Respondent
JUDGMENT/ORDER
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the Respondent State.
2. This is an application for bail. The offence alleged against the applicant is under Ss. 21(C), 22(C) and 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act. The offence is registered against the applicant under Crime No.27/2019 at the Anti-Narcotic Cell, Panaji.
3. The application for bail is opposed by learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Shri Pravin Faldessai. Shri Faldessai submitted that the applicant was found in possession of not only variable but commercial quantities of different drugs/substances in the nature of cocaine, MDMA, and charas.
4. In the course of a raid conducted on 30/12/2019, the applicant, a Portuguese national, came to be arrested where the following drugs/substances were found on his person:
(b) 101.108gms MDMA (commercial quantity;
(b) 240gms charas (variable quantity).
5. Learned counsel for the applicant relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rabi Prakash v/s. The State of Odisha in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.4169/2023 dtd. 13/7/2023 where their Lordships held as under:-
Prolonged incarceration without trial can lead to the violation of the fundamental right to liberty, allowing for the possibility of bail despite statutory restrictions under the NDPS Act.
The judgment established that the prolonged incarceration and the absence of criminal antecedents can be considered in granting bail under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, even in cases involving commerci....
The court established that the statutory restrictions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act create a significant barrier to granting bail in drug-related offenses, emphasizing the necessity of timely chem....
The court reaffirmed that under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, bail cannot be granted unless the accused can demonstrate reasonable grounds for believing they are not guilty and are not likely to commit....
The main legal point established is the need for expedited trial in cases involving prolonged incarceration, as emphasized by the directions of the Hon'ble Apex Court.
Prolonged incarceration due to prosecution delays can justify bail, overriding statutory restrictions under the NDPS Act, in light of Article 21 of the Constitution.
Prolonged incarceration due to prosecution delays can allow bail despite statutory restrictions under the NDPS Act, as it violates the fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Prolonged incarceration and lack of criminal history can justify bail under the NDPS Act, despite the commercial quantity of drugs involved.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the right to speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution can override the statutory embargo created under Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the ND....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
