Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN SHARMA
Sumit Sharma – Appellant
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Ranjan Sharma, J.
Bail petitioner [Sumit Sharma], who is in custody since 26.09.2023 has come up before this Court, seeking regular bail, under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita [hereinafter referred to as ‘BNSS.’], originating from FIR No. 207 of 2023 dated 26.09.2023, registered with police Station Sadar, District Hamirpur under Section 21 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (referred to as the NDPS Act).
FACTUAL MATRIX
2. Case of the petitioner as presented by Sh. Bhupinder Singh Ahuja, Learned Counsel is that a false case as in FIR No. 207 of 2023 dated 26.09.2023 has been registered against the bail petitioner. It is averred that the rigors of Section 37 of NDPS are not applicable to the instant case. It is further further averred that recovery of Heroin/Chitta 10.67 grams is not attributable to the bail petitioner and no recovery has been made from him. It is further averred that the prosecution story is just to implicate him. It is further averred that there is no evidence to connect the bail petitioner with the accusation of the offence. It is further averred that the bail petitioner has filed an application for bail, befo
Bail is a rule and jail is an exception; prolonged incarceration without trial violates the right to personal liberty and speedy trial.
Bail can be granted even under stringent laws like the NDPS Act when prolonged incarceration occurs without trial, emphasizing personal liberty and the presumption of innocence.
Prolonged detention without trial undermines personal liberty; bail is favored, especially when evidence against the accused is weak and trial delays are significant.
Bail is granted when no prima facie case exists against the accused, emphasizing the right to personal liberty under Article 21, especially during prolonged incarceration and delay in trial.
Bail granted in NDPS commercial quantity case: no recovery from petitioner, co-accused confession inadmissible, no prima facie guilt under Sec 37, prolonged 10-month incarceration with trial delay vi....
Bail is a rule and jail is an exception; prolonged detention without trial infringes personal liberty under Article 21.
Prolonged incarceration without trial violates the right to personal liberty under Article 21, necessitating the grant of bail even under stringent provisions like the NDPS Act if no reasonable groun....
Prolonged pre-trial incarceration may justify bail under NDPS Act when there is no substantial evidence against the accused and the right to personal liberty under Article 21 is violated.
The court reinforced that bail serves to protect an individual's personal liberty, particularly when prolonged detention without trial raises constitutional concerns under Article 21, emphasizing the....
Prolonged incarceration without trial infringes the fundamental right to personal liberty under Article 21, requiring bail to be granted in cases of no substantive evidence against the accused and ex....
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
