Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
Rakesh Kainthla, J.
Vijay Kumar - Appellant
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh - Respondent
Cr. MP (M) No. 2945 of 2024
Decided On : 07-03-2025
(A) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS Act) - Sections 21 and 29 - Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Various sections referenced in FIRs - Criminal antecedents and bail applications - Speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution - Requirement of material change in circumstances for subsequent bail applications - Prolonged pre-trial detention and trial delays - Grant of bail despite prior rejection. (Paras 1, 7-24)
(B) The court emphasized that prolonged detention without a reasonable prospect of trial completion violates Article 21, necessitating bail even if criminal antecedents exist. The principle of 'changed circumstances' applies to successive bail applications, requiring material factual or legal shifts to justify reconsideration. (Paras 15-24)
Facts of the case:
Petitioner arrested under Sections 21 and 29 of NDPS Act for possessing 7.34 grams of heroin. Previous bail application dismissed due to criminal antecedents. Trial delayed, with only 3 of 24 prosecution witnesses examined by May 2025. Multiple FIRs pending against petitioner.
Findings of Court:
Petitioner to be released on bail with strict conditions due to inordinate trial delay and violation of right to speedy trial. Criminal antecedents deemed insufficient to deny bail given prolonged incarceration.
Issues: Whether changed circumstances justified reconsideration of bail; whether trial delay violated Article 21 rights; role of criminal antecedents in bail determination.
Ratio Decidendi: Prolonged pre-trial detention without expeditious trial infringes constitutional rights, justifying bail despite prior rejection. Trial delays and piecemeal witness summoning established material change in circumstances. Criminal antecedents lose weight against excessive detention duration.
Result: Petition allowed; petitioner released on bail under specified conditions.
JUDGMENT :
1. 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. 240 of 2023, dated 18.11.2023, registered for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 21 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (in short NDPS Act) at Police Station Sadar, District Solan, H.P. The petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated. He was arrested on 18.11.2023 and is lodged in District Jail Solan. The charge sheet has been filed and no fruitful purpose would be served by detaining the petitioner in custody. The prosecution has examined three witnesses out of 24 witnesses cited in the charge sheet. The conclusion of the trial will take some time, therefore, it was prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail.
2. The police filed a status report asserting that the police party was on patrolling duty on 18.11.2023 when a secret information was received that Vijay Kumar and Rahul were staying in Room No. 104 of Sona Guest House and they had brought a huge quantity of Heroin. The information was reduced into writing. Room No. 104 was searched and 7.34 grams of heroin was recovered during the search. Rahul and petitioner Vijay were found in the room. The police arrested them and seized the heroin. They were interrogated. Narinder Singh and Mohit Lakhanpal were arrested based on the disclosure statements made by Rahul and petitioner Vijay. The result of the analysis shows that the sample stated to be heroin was a sample of Diacetylmorphine (Heroin). One accused, Harjot Singh, was also arrested after filing the charge sheet. F.I.R. No. 339 of 204, dated 20.10.2004, for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 418, 451, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), was registered against the petitioner at the police station (P.S.) Sadar in which he was acquitted. F.I.R. No. 127 of 2023, dated 20.06.2023, was registered against the petitioner at P.S. Sadar, Solan, for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 21 & 29 of the NDPS Act. F.I.R. No. 15/20 dated 19.03.2020 was registered against the petitioner at Women Police Station (WPS) Solan, H.P. for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 376, 376D, 511, 354, 34 of IPC and Section 12 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. The challan was presented before the learned Trial Court on 15.01.2024. The matter is now listed for the prosecution evidence on 03.05.2025; hence, the status report.
3. I have heard Mr. Parikshit Rathour, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Jitender Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent/State.
4. Mr Parikshit Rathour, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner was found in possession of 7.34 grams of heroin, which is slightly more than the small quantity. The other co-accused have been released on bail. The previous bail petition was dismissed by this Court on the ground that the petitioner has criminal antecedents. The prosecution has failed to complete the evidence within 15 months. The right of speedy trial of the petitioner is being violated; hence, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail.
5. Mr. Jitender Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent/State submitted that the petitioner has criminal antecedents and he is likely to commit a similar offence in case of his release on bail. The circumstances have not changed since the decision of the earlier bail petition; hence, he prayed that the present petition be dismissed.
6. I have given considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully.
7. It is undisputed that the petitioner had earlier filed a bail petition bearing Cr.MP(M) No.44 of 2024, which was dismissed by this Court on 26.04.2024. It was held in the State of Maharashtra Vs. Captain Buddhikota Subha R
Prolonged pre-trial detention without expeditious trial violates Article 21, entitling accused to bail despite prior rejection, if material trial delays or changed circumstances exist.
Successive NDPS bail applications allowed on change in circumstances like trial delay infringing speedy trial right under Article 21, overriding offence seriousness and antecedents for grant of bail.
An individual's right to a speedy trial under Article 21 mandates consideration for bail, emphasizing the need to avoid prolonged detention without trial.
The right to a speedy trial is fundamental, and prolonged detention without trial justifies bail, even with prior convictions.
Successive bail in NDPS intermediate quantity case granted due to Article 21 speedy trial violation from long incarceration and trial delay, despite prior rejection and antecedents.
Successive NDPS bail granted despite prior dismissal due to over one-year pre-trial detention violating speedy trial right under Article 21, intermediate quantity, and despite antecedents.
Prolonged incarceration and trial delay in NDPS case with intermediate quantity constitute change in circumstances for successive bail, enforcing speedy trial right under Article 21 despite prior rej....
Prolonged trial delay after two years, with minimal witness examination, constitutes change in circumstances for successive bail in NDPS case, violating Article 21 speedy trial right and warranting r....
In NDPS case, regular bail granted due to one-year pre-trial custody and trial delay violating Article 21 speedy trial right, despite antecedents; proportionality applied to quantity, State cannot op....
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
