Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
Rakesh Kainthla, J
Vijay Kumar – Appellant
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh – Respondent
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
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.
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 in NDPS intermediate quantity case violates speedy trial right under Article 21, constituting change in circumstances for successive bail despite prior rejections and antecedent....
In NDPS cases with intermediate contraband quantity, over one-year incarceration and trial delay violate Article 21 speedy trial right, entitling bail despite antecedents as State cannot oppose on cr....
The right to a speedy trial is a constitutional guarantee, and prolonged detention without trial can justify bail, regardless of prior criminal antecedents.
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
