Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
RAKESH KAINTHLA, J.
Pradeep - Appellant
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh - Respondent
Cr. MP (M) No. 2961 of 2024
Decided On : 07-03-2025
(A) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act - Section 21 - Bail application - The petitioner, arrested for heroin possession, asserts innocence and seeks bail after significant detention, citing no likelihood of trial conclusion. The prosecution opposes, citing prior convictions and potential reoffending. Court emphasizes the need for a speedy trial and the impact of prolonged detention on the accused's rights. (Paras 1, 14, 22, 23)
(B) Judicial discipline - Successive bail applications - The court reiterates that a subsequent bail application can only be considered upon a substantial change in circumstances from the previous application. (Paras 7, 9, 10)
(C) Right to speedy trial - The court highlights that prolonged detention without trial violates the constitutional right to a speedy trial, necessitating bail in the absence of timely prosecution. (Paras 15, 20, 21)
(D) Conditions of bail - The court sets specific conditions for bail to ensure compliance and prevent witness intimidation. (Paras 23, 24)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner was arrested on 22.5.2023 for heroin possession, has prior convictions, and has been in custody for over one year and eight months with no early trial conclusion.
Findings of Court:
The court finds that further detention is unjustified due to the prosecution's failure to complete evidence and the significant time elapsed since arrest.
Issues: The main issues include the justification for bail given the petitioner's prior convictions and the prosecution's delay in trial.
Ratio Decidendi: The court rules that the right to a speedy trial is paramount, and prolonged detention without trial is unjustifiable, warranting bail despite prior convictions.
Result: Petition allowed; petitioner released on bail with conditions.
JUDGMENT :
Rakesh Kainthla, J.
1. The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking regular bail. It has been asserted that the petitioner was arrested vide FIR No. 100/2023, dated 22.5.2023 registered at police station Sadar Solan for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (in short the ‘ND&PS Act’). Thepetitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated. The petitioner was arrested on 22.5.2023 and has undergone a significant period of detention. The petitioner would abide by all the terms and conditions, which the Court may impose. The custody of the petitioner is not required as the charge sheet has been filed before the Court. The prosecution has cited 18 witnesses and there is no likelihood of an early conclusion of the trial. Hence, it was prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail.
2. The petition is opposed by filing a status report, asserting that the police party was on patrolling duty on 22.5.2023. Secret information was received at 4.00 PM that the petitioner was a heroin supplier and in case of a search of his room, a huge quantity of heroin could be recovered. The police reduced the information into writing and associated two independent witnesses. The police searched the room in the presence of the petitioner and recovered 10 syringes and 22.22 grams of heroin. The police arrested the petitioner and seized the heroin. The substance recovered from the petitioner was confirmed to be Diacetylmorphine (heroin) after the chemical analysis. FIR No. 223/98, FIR No. 26/2010, FIR No. 300/2010 and FIR No. 32/21 have also been registered against the petitioner. The petitioner has been acquitted in FIR No. 223/98 and FIR No. 26/10, however, he was convicted in FIR No. 300/10 and FIR No. 32/21 was still pending before the Court. The challan was presented before the Court and is listed for the prosecution evidence on 08.01.2025. The petitioner would indulge in the commission of a similar offence in case of his release on bail. Seven witnesses have been examined and the statements of eleven witnesses are yet to be recorded. Hence, the status report.
3. I have heard Ms. Deeksha Thakur, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Jitender Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent-State.
4. Ms Deeksha Thakur, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was acquitted in FIR No. 32 of 2021 by learned Special Judge, Solan on 29.10.2024. No other case is pending against the petitioner. The petitioner has undergone incarceration for one year and six months. The prosecution is yet to examine eleven witnesses and there is no likelihood of an early conclusion of trial. Therefore, she 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 was convicted in one FIR. He was acquitted in three FIRs. The petitioner is likely to commit a similar offence in case of his release on bail. Therefore, he prayed that the present petition be dismissed.
6. I have given considerable thought to the rival submissions made at the bar and have gone through the record carefully.
7. It is undisputed that the petitioner had filed the bail petition No. 2772 of 2023 which was dismissed by the Court on 7.12.2023. It was held in the State of Maharashtra Vs. Captain Buddhikota Subha Rao, (1989) Supp. 2 SCC 605 that once a bail application has been dismissed, subsequent bail application can only be considered if there is a change of circumstances. It was observed:
“Once that application was rejected, there was no question of granting a similar prayer. That is virtually overruling the earlier decision without there being a change in the fact situation. And when we speak of change, we mean a substantial one, which has a direct impact on the earlier decision and not merely cosm
The right to a speedy trial is fundamental, and prolonged detention without trial justifies bail, even with prior convictions.
An individual's right to a speedy trial under Article 21 mandates consideration for bail, emphasizing the need to avoid prolonged detention without trial.
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.
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.
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 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....
The right to a speedy trial is a fundamental right under Article 21, and inordinate delays can justify bail, irrespective of the seriousness of the charges.
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....
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
