Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
RAVINDRA MAITHANI, J.
Wakeel Ahmad - Applicant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand - Respondent
Second Bail Application No.200 of 2024
Decided On : 08-08-2024
BAIL - NARCOTIC DRUGS AND PSYCHOTROPIC SUBSTANCES ACT - The court emphasized the necessity of a timely trial and the limitations on pre-trial detention under Section 37 of the NDPS Act. It highlighted that while bail may be restricted in cases involving commercial quantities of narcotics, prolonged custody without trial is not permissible, leading to the decision to grant bail to the applicant.
Fact of the Case:
The applicant is in judicial custody under FIR No.303 of 2022 for offenses under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, having been in custody for over a year without any witness examination since the charge sheet was submitted.
Finding of the Court:
The court noted that the applicant's first bail application was dismissed due to non-prosecution and that there had been no progress in the trial for over six months, which warranted consideration for bail.
Issues: Whether the applicant should be granted bail despite the serious nature of the charges under the NDPS Act, given the lack of trial progress.
Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted Section 37 of the NDPS Act, stating that while bail is generally restricted in serious narcotics cases, the right to a timely trial must be upheld, and prolonged detention without trial is not justified.
Result: The court allowed the bail application, directing the applicant's release on bail upon executing a personal bond and providing two sureties.
JUDGMENT :
(Ravindra Maithani, J.) :
Applicant is in judicial custody in FIR No.303 of 2022, under Sections 8, 22 & 60 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Police Station Gadarpur, District U.S. Nagar. He has sought his release on bail.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
3. This is the second bail application of the applicant. The first bail application was dismissed in non prosecution on 05.07.2024.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the charge sheet was submitted on 24.06.2023; charges were framed on 14.08.2023. But thereafter, till date, no witness has been examined. He would submit that applicant has not sought any adjournment.
5. These factual aspects have not been denied by the learned State counsel.
6. It is a case pertaining to recovery of commercial quantity of the narcotic substance 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.
7. The applicant is in custody for more than a year. In between, for more than six months, no progress was made in the case. The trial has yet not concluded. It commands the Court to release the applicant on bail.
8. Having considered, this Court is of the view that it is a case fit for bail and the applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail.
9. The bail application is allowed.
10. 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.
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 ....
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 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 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 cases involving serious charges under the Narcotic Drugs and Psy....
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....
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
