Back
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Mr.Justice K.MURALI SHANKAR, J
Michaelraj – Appellant
Versus
Senior Intelligence Officer, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Thoothukudi – Respondent
ORDER :
(K. MURALI SHANKAR, J.)
The Court made the following order :-
The petitioner/accused, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 16.07.2021 for the offences punishable under Sections 8(c), 21, 23, 25, 28 and 29 of NDPS Act, in F.No.DRI/CZU/ TTIN/VIII/48/10/INT-1/2021, seeks bail.
2. The case of the prosecution is that on 15.07.2021 at about 17.20 hours, based on some information that the accused would be carrying hashish oil in two wheeler bearing Registration No.TN-69-E8879, the respondent agency had intercepted the said vehicle and found that the rider was in possession of 5 pockets of 4.705 kgs of Ganja oil and that the said rider/petitioner herein was arrested and the contraband was seized.
3.The case of the petitioner is that the respondent police has arbitrarily fabricated the above case against the petitioner, that they have not followed all the procedures laid down in the NDPS Act, that the respondent police has not disclosed, in the arrest memo, any material with regard to the ownership of the vehicle, that there is every possibility that the seized substance was implanted in the vehicle in order to implicate the petitioner in the present case, that the indep
Non-compliance with Article 22(1) vitiates arrest, but acknowledgment of grounds by the accused undermines this claim; prolonged custody does not negate statutory bail restrictions under NDPS Act.
Prolonged incarceration without trial infringes upon fundamental rights, warranting bail despite the serious nature of charges under the NDPS Act.
Compliance with Section 50 of the Cr.P.C. and the seriousness of charges under the NDPS Act negate the automatic entitlement to bail, despite prolonged incarceration.
Bail under NDPS Act requires the accused to demonstrate reasonable belief of innocence and no likelihood of re-offending; these conditions are cumulative and must be satisfied.
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.
The court found that the prolonged incarceration of the petitioner and the failure to establish conscious possession warranted the grant of bail under the NDPS Act, balancing his right to liberty and....
Prolonged incarceration and lack of evidence necessitate bail, emphasizing personal liberty and the right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution.
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.
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
