IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN SHARMA
Praveen Kumar – Appellant
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Ranjan Sharma, J.
Bail petitioner [Praveen Kumar], who is in custody since 19.12.2023 has come up before this Court, seeking regular bail, under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sahinta, hereinafter (hereinafter referred to as BNSS ), originating from the FIR No.160 of 2023 dated 19.12.2023, registered at Police Station Dharampur, District Mandi, [HP], under Sections 20 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs andPsychotropic Substances Act (referred to as the NDPS Act).
FACTUAL MATRIX IN INSTANT BAIL PETITION:
2. Case as set up by Mr. Udaynand Sharma, Learned Counsel is that the bail petitioner has been implicated by police in FIR No.160 of 2023, alleging that on 19.12.2023 at about 10:00 AM, while, the police was on patrolling near Shivduala, near Kaccha Road, a Taxi bearing registration No.HP-01M-4495 came, in which, the petitioner and the co-accused Rajinder Singh were travelling. On seeing the police, the co-accused Rajinder Singh become perplexed and tried to run away and policy apprehended him and to have recovered the bag, containing the alleged contraband which was kept near handbrake of the front seat of vehicle.
Pursuant thereto, the search was conducted and bag was
Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia versus State of Punjab
Ram Govind Upadhyay versus Sudarshan Singh
Kalyan Chandra Sarkar versus Rajesh Ranjan
Prasanta Kumar Sarkar versus Ashish Chatterjee
P. Chidambaram versus Directorate of Enforcement
Deepak Yadav versus State of Uttar Pradesh
Narcotics Control Bureau vs Mohit Aggarwal
Union of India vs Ajay Kumar Singh @ Pappu
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 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 detention without a clear and prima facie case warrants bail under the NDPS Act, emphasizing the right to personal liberty.
Prolonged detention without trial undermines personal liberty; bail is favored, especially when evidence against the accused is weak and trial delays are significant.
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....
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.
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 and lack of evidence necessitate bail, emphasizing personal liberty and the right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Prolonged incarceration without trial violates personal liberty; bail is granted when no reasonable grounds exist for guilt.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.