Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
RAKESH KAINTHLA
Shubham Dhani – Appellant
Versus
State of H.P. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Rakesh Kainthla, J.
The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking regular bail in FIR No. 25 of 2025, dated 03.04.2025, registered at Police Station Sadar, District Shimla, H.P., for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act).
2. It has been asserted that, as per the prosecution, the police had recovered 6.850 grams of heroin from the petitioner. These allegations are false. The police have filed the charge sheet after the completion of the investigation. The matter is pending before the learned Special Judge Shimla for the prosecution’s evidence. The prosecution has cited 21 witnesses, out of whom only 5 witnesses have been examined. The FIR No. 23 of 2025, dated 06.02.2025, has been registered against the petitioner for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 21 of the NDPS Act at Police Station West, Shimla, in which he was released on bail. The petitioner is aged 28 years, and is the only son of his parents. He would abide by the terms and conditions that the Court may impose. Hence, the petition.
3. The petition is opposed by filing a status report asserting th
Successive NDPS bail applications allowed on change in circumstances like trial delay infringing speedy trial right under Article 21, overriding offence seriousness and antecedents for grant of bail.
Successive NDPS bail granted despite prior dismissal due to over one-year pre-trial detention violating speedy trial right under Article 21, intermediate quantity, and despite antecedents.
Successive bail in NDPS intermediate quantity case granted due to Article 21 speedy trial violation from long incarceration and trial delay, despite prior rejection and antecedents.
Prolonged incarceration and trial delay in NDPS case with intermediate quantity constitute change in circumstances for successive bail, enforcing speedy trial right under Article 21 despite prior rej....
In NDPS cases with intermediate contraband quantity, over one-year incarceration and trial delay violate Article 21 speedy trial right, entitling bail despite antecedents as State cannot oppose on cr....
Prolonged trial delay in NDPS intermediate quantity case violates speedy trial right under Article 21, constituting change in circumstances for successive bail despite prior rejections and antecedent....
Prolonged pre-trial detention without expeditious trial violates Article 21, entitling accused to bail despite prior rejection, if material trial delays or changed circumstances exist.
The right to a speedy trial is fundamental, and prolonged detention without trial justifies bail, even with prior convictions.
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
