Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, J
Rohit – Appellant
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Rakesh Kainthla, J.
The petitioner has filed the present petition to seek regular bail. It has been asserted that the petitioner was arrested vide FIR No. 128 of 2023, dated 15.11.2023, for the commission of offences punishable under Section 21 read with Section 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (ND&PS Act), Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code ( IPC ) and Section 14 of the Foreigners Act , registered at Police Station Parwanoo, District Solan, H.P. As per the prosecution, the police recovered 18.16 grams of heroin from a car bearing registration No. HP-93-5274 being driven by Rohit Chauhan. The petitioner was also travelling in the vehicle. The police arrested the petitioner and the driver. The police filed a charge sheet before the Court. The prosecution has cited 24 witnesses and has not examined even a single witness. Three FIRs have been registered against the petitioner, which are still pending in the Courts. The petitioner has roots in society. He would abide by the terms and conditions which the Court may impose. Hence the petition.
2. The petition is opposed by filing a status report asserting that the police party was on patrolling duty on 1
The right to a speedy trial is a constitutional guarantee, and prolonged detention without trial can justify bail, regardless of prior criminal antecedents.
Successive NDPS bail applications allowed on change in circumstances like trial delay infringing speedy trial right under Article 21, overriding offence seriousness and antecedents for grant of bail.
Prolonged incarceration and trial delay in NDPS case with intermediate quantity constitute change in circumstances for successive bail, enforcing speedy trial right under Article 21 despite prior rej....
Prolonged pre-trial detention without expeditious trial violates Article 21, entitling accused to bail despite prior rejection, if material trial delays or changed circumstances exist.
Successive bail in NDPS intermediate quantity case granted due to Article 21 speedy trial violation from long incarceration and trial delay, despite prior rejection and antecedents.
In NDPS cases with intermediate contraband quantity, over one-year incarceration and trial delay violate Article 21 speedy trial right, entitling bail despite antecedents as State cannot oppose on cr....
Successive NDPS bail granted despite prior dismissal due to over one-year pre-trial detention violating speedy trial right under Article 21, intermediate quantity, and despite antecedents.
The right to a speedy trial is fundamental, and prolonged detention without trial justifies bail, even with prior convictions.
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
