Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
RAKESH KAINTHLA
Sanju – Appellant
Versus
State of H.P. – Respondent
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 being violated. Therefore, it was prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail.
3. The petition is opposed by filing a status report asserting that the police had set up a Naka near Dhaman bridge on 2.3.2023 at 9.45 PM. They stopped the vehicle bearing registration No. HP-01K-7535 at 10.15 PM. The dr
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....
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 ....
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 rejected in NDPS commercial quantity case as petitioner failed Section 37 twin conditions; conscious possession from vehicle recovery established prima facie; medical disability and trial progre....
In NDPS cases involving commercial quantity, strict satisfaction of Section 37 twin conditions mandatory for bail; trial delay or incarceration alone insufficient grounds.
For bail in NDPS Act cases involving commercial quantity, the accused must establish reasonable grounds of innocence and lack of likelihood to commit further offenses, per Section 37.
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
