Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
RAKESH KAINTHLA, J.
Mohinder - Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. – Respondent
Cr. MP(M) No. 2902 of 2024
Decided On : 08-04-2025
(A) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act - Sections 22 and 29 - Indian Penal Code - Section 201 - Bail application - Petitioner arrested for possession of commercial quantity of drugs, asserting violation of right to speedy trial - Court found no change in circumstances since previous bail denial, and adjournments sought by petitioner contributed to delay - Petition dismissed. (Paras 1, 14, 15)
(B) Right to Speedy Trial - The right to a speedy trial is not absolute and can be affected by the actions of the accused, including seeking adjournments. (Paras 15)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner was arrested for possession of 27,090 tablets of controlled substances and has been in custody since 05.08.2023. The charge has not been framed, and the petitioner claims a violation of his right to a speedy trial. (Paras 1, 15)
Findings of Court:
The court found that the petitioner sought multiple adjournments, which contributed to the delay in framing charges, thus negating his claim of a speedy trial violation. (Paras 15)
Issues: Whether the petitioner is entitled to bail based on the alleged violation of the right to a speedy trial and the circumstances surrounding the previous bail denial. (Paras 14, 15)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the petitioner’s own actions in seeking adjournments precluded him from claiming a violation of his right to a speedy trial, and the circumstances justifying the previous bail denial remained unchanged. (Paras 14, 15)
Result: Petition dismissed.
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 petitioner is being violated. The petitioner is entitled to bail on this ground. The petitioner belongs to a respectable family and 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 05.08.2023. They received a secret information that the petitioner was selling the drugs. The police reduced the information into writing and sent it to Dy. S.P. Baddi. The police associated the Drugs Inspector and two independent witnesses. The police reached the home of the petitioner where he was present. The search of the petitioner’s room was conducted in his presence during which the drugs mentioned above were recovered. The police seized the drugs and arrested the petitioner. The police conducted the investigation and arrested Amit Kumar as per the statement made by the petitioner. Amit Kumar disclosed the name of Anuj, who was also arrested. Amit Kumar had made various payments to Anuj. The tablets were sent to FSL. As per the report, Tramadol and Alprazolam were found in the tablets. The police presented the challan and the matter was listed for consideration of charge on 03.03.2025. Hence, the status report.
3. I have heard Mr. George, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Tarun Pathak, learned Deputy Advocate General for respondent/State.
4. Mr George, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated. The police violated the mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act. The charge sheet was filed in the last week of September 2023, but the Court has not framed the charges. The right to speedy trial of the petitioner is being violated and the petitioner is entitled to bail on this ground. Hence, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail he relied upon the following Judgements in support of his submission:-
- Rabi Prakash Vs. The State of Odisha, Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 4169/2023, decided on 13.07.2023.
- Mohd Muslim @ Hussain Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 260.
- Sreeja @ Sini Vs. State of Kerala, 2023:KER:68791
- Pratap Singh Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, 2023(2) Andh Ld (Criminal) 18.
- Gagan Deep Singh Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, Cr.M.P.(M) No. 2674 of 2023, decided on 01.12.2023.
- Mosin Ali Syed Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, Cr.M.P.(M) No. 1882 of 2023, decided on 25.08.2023.
- Jitan Sahni Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, Cr.MP(M) No.1256 of 2024, decided on 13.08.2024.
- Mohd. Enamul Haque Vs. Directorate of Enforcement, Cr. Appeal No. 3984 of 2024, decided on 23.09.2024.
- Narender Kumar Vs. State of H.P., Cr.MP(M) No.2663 of 2022, decided on 08.09.2023.
- Sirmranjit Singh Vs. Narcotic
AI
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.
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
