Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KAINTHLA
Mohinder – Appellant
Versus
State of H.P. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
(Rakesh Kainthla, J.)
The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking regular bail. It has been asserted that the petitioner has been arrested for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 22 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (in short ‘NDPS Act’) and Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) in FIR No. 210/2023 dated 05.08.2023 registered at Police Station, Baddi, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh. As per the prosecution, the Police recovered 14,500 tablets containing Tramadol Hydrochloride, 590 tablets containing Tramadol Prolonged release, 11,400 tablets of alprazolam and 600 tablets of alprazolam drugs. A total of 27090 tablets were recovered by the police. The police registered the FIR. The petitioner disclosed the names of Amit Kumar and Anuj Kumar, who were arrested by the police. Police filed a charge sheet against the petitioner, Amit Kumar and Anuj Kumar in September 2023. The petitioner has been in custody since 05.08.2023. The petitioner has been in custody for 17 months, and the charge has not been framed so far. The matter was listed for framing of charge in the month of March, 2025. The right of speedy trial of
The right to a speedy trial can be affected by the accused's actions, including seeking adjournments, which may negate claims for bail.
Possession of an intermediate quantity of narcotics does not guarantee bail; each case must be assessed on its own facts considering societal implications.
Successive NDPS bail applications require material change like trial progress and long incarceration; antecedents not bar if substantial sentence undergone and speedy trial violated. Bail granted des....
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.
A subsequent bail application can only be considered if there is a material change in circumstances, as established by judicial precedents.
Successive bail applications require a material change in circumstances; mere delay in trial does not meet the statutory conditions for bail under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.
Bail cannot be granted based on discrepancies in witness statements once the trial has commenced; substantial change in circumstances is required for reconsideration.
Grant of bail under the NDPS Act requires meeting specific twin conditions, which were not satisfied, and mere delay in trial does not justify bail unless supported by substantial change in circumsta....
A material change in circumstances is required for reconsideration of bail applications; otherwise, previous denials remain binding.
A fresh bail application requires a substantial change in circumstances since the previous denial; adjournments sought by the petitioner do not justify bail.
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
