Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KAINTHLA
Pradeep – Appellant
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh – Respondent
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 r
The right to a speedy trial is fundamental, and prolonged detention without trial justifies bail, even with prior convictions.
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.
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....
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
