Back
HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, J
Ram Chander – Appellant
Versus
State of HP – Respondent
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 21 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (in short ‘NDPS Act’) vide FIR No. 249 of 2024, dated 20.12.2024 registered at Police Station Sadar Solan, District Solan H.P. As per the prosecution case, the police party searched the premises of petitioner and found 6.19 grams of heroin kept beneath the mattress. The petitioner is a permanent resident of Delhi. He was falsely implicated. The investigation of the case is complete, and the custody of the petitioner is not required. The petitioner has an aged mother, a young wife, and the children, who are dependent upon him. The petitioner has deep roots in society, and there is no apprehension of his absconding. He would abide by all 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 19.12.2024. They received a secret information at 7:45 p.m. that petitioner Ram Chander and Happ
Bail in drug-related offences requires careful consideration of the accused's criminal history and the nature of the offence, with no entitlement to bail as a matter of right.
The presence of prior convictions and the nature of the crime necessitate a cautious approach to bail, emphasizing that release could pose a threat to society.
The court ruled that bail is not a matter of right, especially for drug-related offences, and emphasized the importance of considering the accused's criminal antecedents and potential for re-offendin....
Bail in drug-related offences requires careful consideration of the nature of accusations, criminal history, and potential societal impact, with no automatic entitlement based on the quantity of drug....
The presence of criminal antecedents significantly influences bail decisions, emphasizing the need to protect society from habitual offenders.
Possession of an intermediate quantity of narcotics does not guarantee bail; each case must be assessed on its own facts considering societal implications.
Possession of an intermediate quantity of drugs does not entitle the accused to bail as a matter of right; societal implications of drug abuse are significant in bail considerations.
Vehicle occupants in conscious possession of intermediate heroin quantity recovered therein; bail denied despite no Section 37 rigours, considering drug menace, criminal antecedents, trafficking indi....
The court ruled that the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act do not apply to the petitioner as the quantity of heroin is intermediate, allowing for bail under reasonable conditions.
In NDPS cases with intermediate narcotic quantity, Section 37 rigours inapplicable; regular bail granted on parity with co-accused, trial delay, and prolonged detention, upholding bail as rule absent....
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
