Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN SHARMA
Purba Sherpa – Appellant
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner's prior detention and the basis for bail. (Para 2) |
| 2. details of the state's case against the petitioner. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. legal framework governing bail including specific statutes. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 10) |
| 4. conditions under which bail can be granted irrespective of statutory restrictions. (Para 8 , 9) |
| 5. conclusion reached by the court regarding bail. (Para 11 , 12 , 23 , 24) |
JUDGMENT :
Ranjan Sharma, J.
Bail petitioner, Purba Sherpa, who is in custody since 26.04.2023 has come up before this Court, seeking regular bail under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as ' BNSS '), originating from FIR No.72 of 2023, dated 26.04.2023, under Section 20 of Narcotics Drugs & Psychotropic Substances, Act, 1985 [hereinafter referred to as 'NDPS Act’], registered at Police Station Bhunter, District Kullu [HP].
FACTUAL MATRIX
2. Case as set-up by Mr. Kamal Kant Chandel, learned counsel for petitioner is that the police arrested the bail petitioner on 26.04.2023 for accusation under Section 20 of the NDPS Act. It is submitted that the petitioner is completely innocent and a false case has been registered at the instance of so
Under prolonged detention circumstances, bail should be granted if no reasonable grounds exist to believe in the guilt of the accused, respecting Article 21 rights.
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....
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.
Prolonged incarceration and lack of evidence necessitate bail, emphasizing personal liberty and the right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Prolonged pre-trial detention without a clear and prima facie case warrants bail under the NDPS Act, emphasizing the right to personal liberty.
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....
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 detention without trial undermines personal liberty; bail is favored, especially when evidence against the accused is weak and trial delays are significant.
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.
Prolonged incarceration without trial violates personal liberty; bail is granted when no reasonable grounds exist for guilt.
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
