Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
RAKESH KAINTHLA, J.
Goldy - Appellant
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh - Respondent
Cr. MP(M) No. 131 of 2025
Decided on : 01-05-2025
(A) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act - Sections 15 and 29 - Bail application - Petitioner arrested for alleged sale of poppy straw, claiming false implication - Petitioner in custody for over four years with trial at initial stage - Right to speedy trial violated as only 7 out of 23 witnesses examined - Court emphasizes that prolonged detention without trial infringes constitutional rights. (Paras 1, 17, 24)
(B) Right to speedy trial - Constitutional right under Article 21 - Delay in trial necessitates consideration for bail - Prosecution's failure to expedite trial cannot justify continued detention. (Paras 18, 24)
(C) Judicial discipline - Successive bail applications require substantial change in circumstances - Court must consider reasons for previous rejections. (Paras 7, 9, 10)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a cleaner, was arrested in connection with FIR No. 394 of 2020 for selling poppy straw. He claims false implication and has been in custody since December 2020, with minimal progress in the trial. (Paras 1, 17)
Findings of Court:
The court found that the prosecution's failure to progress the trial within a reasonable time infringes the petitioner's right to a speedy trial, warranting bail. (Paras 24, 25)
Issues: The main issues included the violation of the right to a speedy trial and the justification for the petitioner's continued detention. (Paras 17, 24)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the right to a speedy trial is a constitutional right, and prolonged detention without trial is unjustifiable. The prosecution's failure to expedite the trial necessitates the granting of bail. (Paras 18, 24)
Result: Petition allowed; petitioner released on bail with conditions.
JUDGMENT :
Rakesh Kainthla, J.
The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking regular bail. It has been asserted that the petitioner was arrested for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 15 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the ND&PS Act’), vide FIR No. 394 of 2020, dated 22.12.2020, registered at Police Station Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P. The petitioner has been falsely implicated. He was employed as a cleaner in the truck before the incident. The driver and the owner of the vehicle were arrayed as accused. The petitioner has been in custody for more than four years. The trial is at the initial stage. Out of 23 witnesses 07 witnesses have been examined, and the matter is now listed for examination of the witnesses at Serial Nos 1, 3, 4 and 5 on 17.5.2025. The petitioner 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 22.12.2020. The police received a secret informant at 6:30 a.m. that Balbir Singh, the driver, and Goldy (the present petitioner), the cleaner of the truck bearing No. HP93-2654 were selling poppy straw from their vehicle. The police reduced this information to writing and forwarded it to the Superior Officer. Upon arriving at the scene, the police found one individual in the parked truck, who identified himself as Goldy (the present petitioner). He also stated that Balbir Singh had left and would return shortly. The police searched for Balbir Singh but were unable to locate him. The officers inspected the truck in the presence of Dy.S.P. Arun Modi and recovered nine bags containing 189.137 kg of poppy straw. The police seized the poppy straw and the truck before arresting the petitioner. The poppy straw was sent to SFSL Junga, and the results of the analysis confirmed it was indeed a sample of poppy straw. Balbir Singh committed suicide on 04.01.2021. The challan was prepared and presented before the Court on 12.03.2021. Seven (7) witnesses have been examined so far, and the matter was listed on 17.5.2025 for recording the statements of prosecution witnesses. Hence, the status report.
3. I have heard Mr. Gurdev Negi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Ajit Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General, for the respondent-State.
4. Mr. Gurdev Negi, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated. The prosecution has not examined any witnesses since the dismissal of the earlier petition. There is no progress in the trial, and the right to a speedy trial of the petitioner is being violated. Hence, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail.
5. Mr. Ajit Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondent-State, submitted that the summons are being issued and the prosecution has examined seven witnesses. There is no delay in the progress of the trial. Hence, it was 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. It is undisputed that the petitioner had filed a bail petition, which was registered as Cr.MP(M) No. 1355 of 2024 and was dismissed by the Court on 14.8.2024. It was held in theState of Maharashtra Vs. Captain Buddhikota Subha Rao (1989) Suppl. 2 SCC 605, that once a bail application has been dismissed, a subsequent bail application can only be considered if there is a change of circumstances. It was observed:
“Once that application was rejected, there was no question of granting a similar prayer. That is virtually overruling the earlier decision without there being a change in the fact situation. And when we speak of change, we mean a substantial one, which has a direct impact on the earlier decision and not merely cosmetic changes, which are of little or
The right to a speedy trial is a constitutional right under Article 21, and prolonged detention without trial justifies the granting of bail.
The right to a speedy trial is fundamental, and prolonged detention without trial justifies bail, even with prior convictions.
Prolonged trial delay after two years, with minimal witness examination, constitutes change in circumstances for successive bail in NDPS case, violating Article 21 speedy trial right and warranting r....
An individual's right to a speedy trial under Article 21 mandates consideration for bail, emphasizing the need to avoid prolonged detention without trial.
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.
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....
Successive bail in serious offences granted on material change like trial delay and co-accused releases, upholding speedy trial right under Article 21 despite prior rejection.
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 a fundamental right under Article 21, and inordinate delays can justify bail, irrespective of the seriousness of the charges.
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
