Bank Can Adjust OTS Deposit on Borrower Default, No Cheating u/s 420 IPC: Delhi High Court
02 Mar 2026
Divij Kumar Quits CMS INDUSLAW for Independent Practice
03 Mar 2026
Global Lawyers Debate AI Liability in Autonomous Vehicles
03 Mar 2026
CCPA Fines Startup ₹8 Lakh for False Child Growth Claims
05 Mar 2026
Madras High Court Scoffs at Police Custody Injury Claim
05 Mar 2026
India's Criminal Investigations Face Systemic Conviction Crisis
05 Mar 2026
Kerala HC Slams TDB Financial Discipline in Ayyappa Conclave, Orders Auditor Report on Past Anomalies: High Court of Kerala
06 Mar 2026
ST Members Can Invoke Section 13B HMA If Hinduised By Customs: Chhattisgarh High Court
06 Mar 2026
Lease Cancellation Valid Even by 'In-Charge' Mining Officer Under OMMC Rules: Orissa High Court
06 Mar 2026
Back
Next 
KULDEEP MATHUR
Rajmal S/o Kesar Singh – Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan, Through PP – Respondent
Headnote: Read headnote
ORDER
These second applications for bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. have been filed by the petitioners who have been arrested in connection with FIR No.VII(IO)08/NCB/JZU/2020 registered at NCB, Jodhpur, for offences under Sections 8/18, 25 and 29 of the NDPS Act.
2. As per the prosecution, team of NCB, Jodhpur, on 12.03.2020, recovered contraband (opium) greater than commercial quantity from conscious possession of the present petitioners. They were arrested on the spot.
3. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioners are in custody since 12.03.2020. It was also submitted that trial against the petitioners has commenced but in last more than 3 years and 10 months, out of the total 11 cited prosecution witnesses, only 5 witnesses have been examined till date. Learned counsel submitted that the delay in trial before the competent criminal court is not at all attributable to the present petitioners.
4. Learned counsel thus submitted that in view of the fact that the petitioners are in custody for last more than 3 years and 10 months and the delay in trial is not attributable
Bail – Fifth bail application filed solely on the ground of custody period of accused and keeping in view fact that trial against him has not been completed till date, deserves to be accepted.
Prolonged incarceration and delays in trial can justify bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C., emphasizing the right to a speedy trial under Article 21.
The delay in trial and prolonged incarceration can warrant granting bail despite statutory restrictions under the NDPS Act.
The court considered the prolonged custody of the petitioner and the exceptions within Section 37 of the NDPS Act to grant bail.
The right to speedy trial and the interpretation of statutory restrictions on bail under the NDPS Act were central to the court's decision.
The central legal point established in the judgment is that prolonged incarceration militates against the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution, and bail can be granted ba....
Prolonged incarceration can justify bail despite statutory restrictions under the NDPS Act, emphasizing the right to a speedy trial.
Prolonged incarceration can justify bail despite statutory restrictions under the NDPS Act, emphasizing the right to a speedy trial.
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
Listen Article