Back
KIRTI SINGH
Lovepreet Singh @ Lovely – Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Kirti Singh, J.
1. The jurisdiction of this Court was invoked under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No. 125 dated 26.06.2024, under Section 22 of the NDPS Act, 1985 registered at Police Station Sultanpur Lodhi, District Kapurthala.
2. The translated contents of the FIR are reproduced below:
None of the listed cases explicitly indicate that they have been overruled, reversed, or otherwise treated as bad law. There are no direct references or language suggesting judicial criticism, disapproval, or invalidation of these precedents in the provided descriptions.
[Followed]
None of the cases explicitly state that they have been followed or are currently binding. The descriptions focus on the principles established rather than their subsequent treatment.
[Distinguished or Cited]
The first case Rini Johar VS State of M. P. - 2016 4 Supreme 397, which discusses initiation of disciplinary proceedings, violation of procedures, and the award of compensation, appears to be a substantive decision establishing specific legal principles. However, there is no indication within the provided text that it has been distinguished from another case or cited as a precedent to be overruled or criticized.
[Criticized, Questioned, or Rejected]
The second case Sube Singh VS State Of Haryana - 2006 2 Supreme 140, discussing police conduct and the evidence required to support custodial torture claims, states that courts "may not award compensation as a public law remedy" if evidence is lacking or allegations are exaggerated. This language suggests a stance that could be subject to criticism or questioning in subsequent jurisprudence, but there is no explicit indication in the provided text that this case has been overruled or discredited.
[Clarifications or Confirmations]
The third case Hardeep Singh VS State of Madhya Pradesh - 2011 8 Supreme 700, regarding prosecution sanctions for public servants acting in official duty, states a legal requirement (sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. is mandatory). This appears to be a straightforward statement of law without indicated subsequent treatment.
None of the cases clearly indicate that they have been overruled, reversed, or treated as bad law. The language provided does not include references to subsequent judicial treatment that would make their status uncertain. Therefore, all cases are treated as potentially still valid, with no explicit indication of invalidation or disapproval.
The court recognized the right to privacy and the right to be forgotten, emphasizing accountability in law enforcement and awarding compensation for wrongful detention.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the entitlement to compensation for illegal incarceration under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
Bail may be granted if the accused is named in a co-accused's disclosure statement without corroborative evidence, especially after substantial custody time, aligning with the right to a speedy trial....
The authenticity of documents and compliance with legal provisions, along with the substantial custody of the accused and the likelihood of a prolonged trial, are crucial factors in granting bail.
The stringent bail conditions under the NDPS Act and the need for substantial probable causes to grant bail.
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
