Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
RAVINDRA MAITHANI, J.
Lokesh Kumar - Applicant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand - Respondent
Third Bail Application No. 64 of 2023
Decided On : 28-02-2024
BAIL - NARCOTIC DRUGS - The court discussed the provisions of Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, which restricts bail in cases involving narcotic substances unless the court is satisfied of the accused's innocence and lack of risk to re-offend. The court emphasized the need for timely trial proceedings and the unreasonable delay in the applicant's case, ultimately deciding to grant bail due to the prolonged custody without trial progress.
Fact of the Case:
Lokesh Kumar, the applicant, was arrested on 18.09.2020 for possession of narcotic substances in commercial quantity under FIR/Case Crime No. 0061 of 2020. This was his third bail application after previous denials in 2021 and 2022.
Finding of the Court:
The court noted that the applicant had been in custody for over a year with significant delays in trial proceedings, as only four witnesses had been examined since the arrest. The court acknowledged the lack of progress in the case and the applicant's right to a timely trial.
Issues: Whether the applicant should be granted bail under the provisions of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, considering the lengthy custody and slow progress of the trial.
Ratio Decidendi: The court highlighted that while Section 37 imposes restrictions on granting bail in narcotic cases, it also mandates that prolonged custody without trial is not permissible. The court found reasonable grounds to believe that the applicant should be released on bail due to the lack of trial progress.
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 Lokesh Kumar is in judicial custody FIR/Case Crime No. 0061 of 2020, under Section 8/22 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (“the Act”), Police Station Clementown, District Dehradun. He has sought his release on bail.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
3. This is the third bail application. The first bail application, being BA1 No.2247 of 2020, was dismissed on 17.08.2021. The second bail application, being BA2 No.4 of 2022, was also dismissed on 12.04.2022.
4. According to the case, on 18.09.2020, narcotic substances in commercial quantity was recovered from the possession of the applicant.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the applicant was arrested on 18.09.2020; cognizance was taken on 18.03.2021, but charges could be framed on 08.10.2021. It is submitted that so far, only four witnesses have been examined. It is submitted that PW1 was examined on 21.11.2022; PW2 was examined on 24.07.2023; PW3 was examined on 22.09.2023 and PW4 was examined on 06.11.2023.
6. These factual aspects have not been denied by the learned State counsel.
7. It is a case pertaining to recovery of narcotic substances in commercial quantity 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 one 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 the entirety of facts, this Court is of the view that 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 detention without trial can warrant the granting of bail, even in serious narcotic cases under Section 37 of the A....
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 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 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 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 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.
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
