Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
RAVINDRA MAITHANI, J.
Randheer Singh - Applicant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand - Respondent
Second Bail Application No.151 of 2024
Decided On : 07-08-2024
BAIL - Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act - The court emphasized the necessity of a timely trial and the right to bail under Section 37 of the Act, concluding that prolonged custody without witness examination warranted the granting of bail.
Fact of the Case:
The applicant is in judicial custody under FIR No. 4 of 2023 for alleged possession of Ganja in commercial quantity. This is the applicant's second bail application, following the withdrawal of the first application.
Finding of the Court:
The court noted that the applicant has been in custody for over a year, with no witnesses examined for more than six months, which is a significant delay in the trial process.
Issues: Whether the applicant is entitled to bail under the provisions of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, considering the duration of custody and the lack of witness examination.
Ratio Decidendi: The court highlighted that while Section 37 of the Act restricts bail in cases involving commercial quantities of narcotics, it also mandates that prolonged custody without trial is not permissible, thus allowing for bail under the circumstances.
Result: The bail application was allowed, and the applicant was ordered to be released on bail upon executing a personal bond and providing two reliable sureties.
JUDGMENT :
(Ravindra Maithani, J.) :
Applicant is in judicial custody in FIR No. 4 of 2023, under Section 8, 20, 27, 29 & 60 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (“the Act”), Police Station Dhumakote, District Pauri Garhwal. He has sought his release on bail.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
3. This is second bail application of the applicant. First bail application was dismissed as withdrawn on 03.01.2024.
4. According to the FIR, Ganja in commercial quantity was allegedly recovered from the possession of the applicant on 25.02.2023.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that after his arrest, the applicant is in jail for a long; charge sheet was submitted in the case on 27.07.2023; charge was framed on 19.09.2023; PW1 was examined on 16.10.2023 and PW2 was examined on 20.11.2023. But since then, no witness has been examined. It is also submitted that the applicant has not sought any adjournment.
6. Learned State counsel admits these facts.
7. It is a case of recovery of commercial quantity of Ganja and in such cases Section 37 of the Act makes specific provisions. Bail in such cases may not be granted, unless the Court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. But, denial of bail does not give unfettered liberty to the prosecution to keep a person in custody without conducting a trial.
8. The applicant is in custody for more than a year. For more than six months in between not even a single witness was examined.
9. Having considered the entirety of facts, this Court is of the view that the applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail.
10. The bail application is allowed.
11. Let the applicant be released on bail, on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties, each of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the Court concerned.
Prolonged detention without trial and lack of witness examination can justify the granting of bail, even in cases involving serious charges under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act.
The court established that the right to a timely trial is fundamental, and prolonged pre-trial detention without progress in the case can lead to the granting of bail, even in serious offenses under ....
The court established that prolonged detention without trial and lack of witness examination can justify the granting of bail, even in cases involving serious charges under the Narcotic Drugs and Psy....
The right to a timely trial and the conditions under which bail may be granted under the NDPS Act, emphasizing that prolonged detention without trial can lead to the granting of bail.
The court established that prolonged detention without trial and lack of witness examination can justify the granting of bail, even in serious narcotic cases, under the provisions of the Narcotic Dru....
The court established that while Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act imposes strict conditions for bail, the right to a timely trial is paramount, and undue delay in procee....
The court established that prolonged custody without trial and lack of witness examination can warrant the granting of bail, even in cases involving serious charges under the NDPS Act.
The court established that the right to a timely trial is fundamental, and prolonged detention without trial can warrant the granting of bail, even in serious narcotic cases under Section 37 of the A....
Prolonged incarceration and lack of witness examination can justify granting bail under the NDPS Act, despite the stringent conditions imposed by 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
