Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
BIPIN CHANDER NEGI, J
Suresh Kumar – Appellant
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Bipin Chander Negi, J.
1. The present bail petition has been filed under Section 483 of the BNSS for grant of bail, in FIR No.01 of 2023, dated 01.01.2023, registered at Police Station, Sadar Kullu, District Kullu H.P., under Section 20 of the ND& PS Act.
2. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the record and the status report.
3. The brief facts of the present case are that on 31.12.2022, HC Jagdish No. 51, HC Sandeep Kumar No. 23, Ct. Ajay Kumar No. 444, Ct. Hukam Chand No. 477 and Ct. Tej Ram No. 324 were patrolling for surveillance regarding narcotics in the areas of Ramsheela, Hathithan, Chilmod, Shot, Kasol, etc. A report No. 14 dated 31.12.2022 was entered in the daily diary of SIU Kullu. They were traveling in a private vehicle No. HP49 1607, equipped with an IO kit, laptop, and searchlight.
4. At around 7:30 PM, while HC Jagdish Kumar No. 51 and the above-mentioned personnel were patrolling on foot in Sarasari Bazaar, HC Jagdish Kumar received confidential information from a reliable source that a youth named Suresh Kumar (bail petitioner), resident of Village Dhara, was going to sell charas near the water spring (Chashma) of Chaung at around 10:00 P
Personal liberty is a fundamental right, and bail should be granted unless there are compelling reasons to deny it, especially in light of trial delays.
The court emphasized the presumption of innocence and the necessity of judicial discretion in granting bail, particularly in cases involving commercial quantities of contraband.
Bail cannot be granted under Section 37 of the NDPS Act for commercial quantity possession unless specific conditions are met, particularly if the public prosecutor opposes the application.
The court held that the applicant is entitled to bail as the quantity of contraband does not constitute commercial quantity, thus Section 37 of the NDPS Act is inapplicable, and the presumption of in....
Prolonged incarceration due to prosecution delays can override statutory bail restrictions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, aligning with Article 21's protection of personal liberty.
The right to a speedy trial is fundamental, and prolonged incarceration without justifiable cause infringes on the accused's rights, warranting bail under stringent provision scrutiny.
Prolonged incarceration without trial violates the right to personal liberty under Article 21, necessitating the grant of bail even under stringent provisions like the NDPS Act if no reasonable groun....
Prolonged incarceration without trial violates personal liberty; bail is granted when no reasonable grounds exist for guilt.
While deciding petition for bail viz. prima facie case, nature and gravity of accusation, punishment involved, apprehension of repetition of offence and witnesses being influenced.
The right to bail in NDPS Act cases hinges on fulfilling stringent conditions under Section 37, prioritizing public safety and preventing absconding, especially when accusations involve significant q....
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
