Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
RAKESH KAINTHLA
Sanju – Appellant
Versus
State of H.P. – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. details of the bail application and allegations. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. arguments by petitioner and respondent. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 3. consideration of trial progress and petitioner's right. (Para 7 , 10 , 17) |
| 4. principles for granting bail under ndps act. (Para 8 , 9 , 12 , 18) |
| 5. conclusion of petition dismissal. (Para 23 , 24) |
JUDGMENT :
RAKESH KAINTHLA, J.
1. The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking regular bail in FIR No. 15 of 2023, dated 3.3.2023, registered at the Police Station Sainj, District Kullu, H.P. for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 20 and 25 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act).
2. It has been asserted that, as per the prosecution, the police had set up a naka at Dhaman Pul, Sainj. The police intercepted the petitioner’s vehicle bearing registration No. HP-01K-7535 and recovered 2.603 kilograms of charas. The police arrested the petitioner. These allegations are false. The prosecution has cited 26 witnesses, out of whom 09 have been examined. The petitioner is a taxi driver and the family's sole earner. The petitioner has been behind bars since 3.3.2023, and his right to a speedy trial is b
Grant of bail under the NDPS Act requires meeting specific twin conditions, which were not satisfied, and mere delay in trial does not justify bail unless supported by substantial change in circumsta....
Successive bail applications require a material change in circumstances; mere delay in trial does not meet the statutory conditions for bail under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.
Successive NDPS bail applications require material change in circumstances and Section 37 twin conditions satisfaction; prolonged incarceration or recovery suspicions alone insufficient without such ....
Successive bail applications require substantial change in circumstances; filing charge sheet does not qualify as such, nor does unproven trial delay. Courts must exercise restraint to uphold judicia....
Bail denied under NDPS Section 37 as petitioner with prima facie possession of commercial quantity charas failed twin conditions: no reasonable grounds believing not guilty and likely to reoffend; tr....
The court ruled that bail cannot be granted under Section 37 of the NDPS Act unless conditions of proving innocence and minimal risk of reoffending are met, regardless of trial delays.
In NDPS commercial quantity cases, bail requires strict satisfaction of Section 37 twin conditions: reasonable grounds believing not guilty and no reoffending risk. Prolonged detention, trial delays ....
Bail denied in commercial quantity NDPS case as petitioner failed Section 37 twin conditions despite prolonged custody and trial delay; vehicle occupants prima facie in conscious possession.
The court ruled that bail cannot be granted under the NDPS Act unless the accused satisfies the twin conditions of Section 37 concerning the likelihood of guilt and re-offense.
Bail in NDPS commercial quantity cases denied unless twin conditions under Section 37 satisfied: reasonable grounds believing accused not guilty and unlikely to commit offence on bail; red-handed arr....
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
