Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
RAKESH KAINTHLA
Sujeet alias Sujit – Appellant
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner arrested for possessing commercial quantity charas under ndps. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. petitioner's speedy trial claim opposed by state's ndps section 37. (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. bail requires judicious application of supreme court principles. (Para 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 4. prosecution delays infringe right to speedy trial. (Para 9 , 10) |
| 5. article 21 mandates speedy trial; undue delay warrants bail. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 6. bail granted due to speedy trial violation overriding ndps. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23) |
Judgment :
Rakesh Kainthla, J.
The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking regular bail in F.I.R. No. 62 of 2023, dated 28.04.2023, registered at Police Station Barmana, District Bilaspur, H.P., for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS). It has been asserted that the police have filed a charge sheet before the learned Trial Court on 28.06.2023. The charges were framed on 04.12.2023. The prosecution has cited sixteen witnesses, and the statements of nine witnesses have been recorded so far. The petitioner has been behind the bars for the last two years and one
Inordinate trial delay by prosecution violates Article 21 speedy trial right, entitling bail in NDPS commercial quantity cases despite Section 37 rigours.
Prolonged trial delay after two years, with minimal witness examination, constitutes change in circumstances for successive bail in NDPS case, violating Article 21 speedy trial right and warranting r....
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 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....
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....
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.
An individual's right to a speedy trial under Article 21 mandates consideration for bail, emphasizing the need to avoid prolonged detention without trial.
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 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.
Inordinate delay in POCSO trial constitutes material change for successive bail application, overriding offence gravity; speedy trial right under Article 21 mandates release from prolonged undertrial....
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
