Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KAINTHLA
Kundan Lal – Appellant
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh – 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 vide F.I.R. No. 24 of 2022, dated 3.9.2022, for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 21 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (in short‘NDPS Act’) registered at Police Station Mehatpur, District Una, H.P. Later on, the custody of the petitioner was transferred to Roopnagar, Punjab and he is lodged in District Jail at Roopnagar, Punjab. As per the prosecution, the police intercepted a vehicle bearing registration No. PB-74B-3399 and found 7.53 grams of heroin in it. The petitioner was sitting with the driver in the vehicle. 37 FIRS have been registered against the petitioner, out of which, he was convicted in some, acquitted in some, and some are pending. The quantity of heroin stated to have been in the possession of the petitioner is an intermediate quantity. The police have filed the charge sheet, and the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required. The petitioner is a permanent resident of District Roopnagar, Punjab, and he has roots in the society. No fruitful purpose would
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.
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.
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 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....
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.
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....
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....
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.
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
