Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, J
Sundari – 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 FIR No. 24 of 2025, dated 29.01.2025, for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 21 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (ND&PS Act), registered at Police Station Paonta Sahib, District Sirmour, H.P. As per the prosecution, the police recovered 08 grams of heroin from the petitioner’s house. The rigours of Section 37 of the ND&PS Act do not apply to the present case. The petitioner’s husband is suffering from heart ailment and diabetes. The petitioner is responsible for looking after him. The investigation is complete, and no fruitful purpose would be served by detaining the petitioner in custody. The petitioner would abide by all 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 were on patrolling duty on 29.1.2025. They received a secret information at 4.00 PM that the petitioner and her son were selling heroin, and in case of search, a huge quantity of heroin could be recovered. The i
Bail may be granted based on special circumstances, such as the accused's family obligations, despite prior criminal history.
The court ruled that the rigours of Section 37 of the ND&PS Act do not apply as the quantity of heroin is less than commercial, allowing bail with conditions.
The court established that the parameters for granting bail must ensure the accused's presence during trial, emphasizing the need for reasonable conditions and the concept of conscious possession in ....
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....
Bail for accused with prior offenses requires careful scrutiny; strong evidence existing against the petitioner precludes bail despite claimed trial delays.
Female petitioner granted bail in NDPS case with intermediate contraband quantity from shared room despite possession presumption, due to special gender consideration, no antecedents, and charge-shee....
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 court established that pre-trial detention is unjustified when the accused can be secured by bail, especially in the absence of substantial evidence.
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.
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
