Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Rakesh Kainthla, J.
Rohit - Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh - Respondent
Cr. MP(M) No. 25 of 2025
Decided On : 01-04-2025
(A) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act - Section 21, 29 - Indian Penal Code - Section 201 - Foreigners Act - Section 14 - Bail application - Petitioner arrested for possession of heroin - No witnesses examined by prosecution despite charge sheet filed - Right to speedy trial violated - Petitioner has been in custody for over one year - Conditions for bail imposed to ensure presence during trial. (Paras 1 , 10 , 19 )
(B) Right to Speedy Trial - Constitutional right under Article 21 - Inordinate delay in trial entitles accused to bail - Courts must ensure timely trials to prevent unjust imprisonment. (Paras 11 , 12 , 18 )
(C) Criminal Antecedents - Presence of antecedents not sole ground for denying bail - Long incarceration can warrant bail despite prior offences. (Paras 18 , 19 )
Facts of the case:
The petitioner was arrested for possession of 18.16 grams of heroin while traveling in a vehicle. Multiple FIRs are pending against him, and no witnesses have been examined in over a year.
Findings of Court:
The petitioner is granted bail due to the violation of the right to a speedy trial and the lack of prosecution witnesses.
Issues: Whether the right to a speedy trial has been violated and if the petitioner should be granted bail despite criminal antecedents.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of a speedy trial as a constitutional right and noted that prolonged detention without trial is unjust. The presence of criminal antecedents does not automatically preclude bail if incarceration is prolonged.
Result: Petition allowed; the petitioner is granted bail with conditions.
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 15.11.2023. A vehicle bearing registration No. HP-93-5274 was stopped at 4.30 AM for checking. The petitioner was occupying the seat adjacent to the driver. The police recovered two pieces of aluminium foil, two currency notes of Rs.10/- and one white paper on the dashboard. The police found 18.16 grams of heroin inside the dashboard. The police seized the heroin and arrested the petitioner and the driver. The other co-accused was also arrested at the instance of the petitioner. FIR No. 313 of 2018, dated 21.10.2018 for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 21 and 22 of the ND&PS Act, FIR No. 148 of 2019, dated 14.7.2019 for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 21 and 29 of ND&PS Act and FIR No. 127 of 2022, dated 20.7.2022 for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 21 of ND&PS Act are pending in different Courts against the petitioner. The mobile phone of the petitioner was sent to FSL, and the supplementary charge sheet will be filed after the receipt of the report. The matter was listed on 17.2.2025 for the prosecution's evidence.
3. I have heard Mr. Anubhav Chopra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Tarun Pathak, learned Deputy Advocate General, for the respondent-State.
4. Mr. Anubhav Chopra, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated. He has been in custody for more than one year. No witness has been examined by the prosecution. The trial is not likely to conclude soon, and the right to a speedy trial of the petitioner is being violated. He relied upon the judgments in Pradeep Kumar v. State of H.P. 2025:HHC:5121 , Ayub Khan v. State of Rajasthan 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3763 , Rahul Thakur Vs. State of H.P. 2025:HHC:5710 and Vijay Kumar Vs. State of H.P. 2025:HHC:5122 in support of his submission.
5. Mr. Tarun Pathak, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondent-State, submitted that three FIRs were registered against the petitioner. The petitioner would indulge in the commission of a similar offence in case of his release on bail. Hence, he prayed that the present petition be dismissed.
6. I have given considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully.
7. The parameters for granting bail were considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ramratan v. State of M.P. , 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3068 , wherein it was observed as follows: -
“12. The fundamental purpose of bail is to ensure the accused's presence during the investigation and trial. Any conditions imposed must be reasonable and directly related to this objective. This Court in Parvez Noordin Lokhandwalla v. State of Maharastra (2020) 10 SCC 77 observed that though the competent court is empowered to exercise its discretion to impo
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.
An individual's right to a speedy trial under Article 21 mandates consideration for bail, emphasizing the need to avoid prolonged detention without trial.
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....
In NDPS case, regular bail granted due to one-year pre-trial custody and trial delay violating Article 21 speedy trial right, despite antecedents; proportionality applied to quantity, State cannot op....
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
