Lease Cancellation Valid Even by 'In-Charge' Mining Officer Under OMMC Rules: Orissa High Court
06 Mar 2026
Criminal Probe Can't Continue Against Unknowns Sans Prima Facie Offence: Bombay HC Quashes CBI FIR
06 Mar 2026
Justice Dharmadikari Bids Empathetic Farewell to Kerala High Court
06 Mar 2026
Compensation U/S 28A LA Act Not Restricted to Foundational Award: Bombay High Court
06 Mar 2026
Karnataka HC Issues Notice on Sri Lankan Judge's Right to be Forgotten Plea for Removing Alleged Defamatory Online Content
06 Mar 2026
Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari Sworn In as 55th Madras HC Chief Justice
06 Mar 2026
Shrivastava Highlights Bench-Bar Partnership in Farewell Speech
06 Mar 2026
Kerala HC Directs Urgent Monsoon Prep for Flood-Prone Kochi
06 Mar 2026
Ignoring Court-Mandated PWD Safety Report Invalidates Municipal Order: J&K&L High Court
06 Mar 2026
Back
Next 
KULDEEP MATHUR
Rajmal – Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan – Respondent
Headnote: Read headnote
ORDER :
Mr. Kuldeep Mathur, J. - 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
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.
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.
The delay in trial and prolonged incarceration can warrant granting bail despite statutory restrictions under the NDPS Act.
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 court considered the prolonged custody of the petitioner and the exceptions within Section 37 of the NDPS Act to grant bail.
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....
Custody duration and lack of trial progress can lead to bail grant despite statutory restrictions under the NDPS Act.
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