Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
RAVINDRA MAITHANI, J.
Sandeep – Appellant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand – Respondent
First Bail Application No. 2617 of 2022
Decided On : 28-02-2024
BAIL - NARCOTIC DRUGS - The court emphasized the provisions of Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, which restricts bail in cases involving narcotic substances unless there are reasonable grounds for believing the accused is not guilty and will not commit further offenses. The court noted the prolonged custody of the applicant without trial and the lack of witness examination, leading to the decision to grant bail.
Fact of the Case:
The applicant, Sandeep, was arrested on 14.07.2022 for possession of narcotic substances in commercial quantity under FIR/Case Crime No. 455 of 2022. He has been in judicial custody since then, with no witnesses examined and significant delays in the trial process.
Finding of the Court:
The court acknowledged the applicant's prolonged custody exceeding one and a half years without trial progress and the absence of witness examination, which warranted consideration for bail despite the serious nature of the charges.
Issues: Whether the applicant is entitled to bail under the provisions of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, considering the duration of custody and lack of trial progress.
Ratio Decidendi: The court highlighted that while Section 37 imposes restrictions on granting bail in narcotic cases, the denial of bail cannot lead to indefinite custody without trial. The lack of progress in the case and the applicant's long detention were critical factors in the decision.
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.
1. Applicant Sandeep is in judicial custody FIR/Case Crime No. 455 of 2022, under Section 8/22 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (“the Act”), Police Station Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar. He has sought his release on bail.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
3. According to the case, on 14.07.2022, narcotic substances in commercial quantity was recovered from the possession of the applicant.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the applicant was arrested on 14.07.2022; charge sheet was filed in the matter on 12.01.2023, but charges could be framed on 10.05.2023. It is submitted that no witness has yet been examined.
5. These factual aspects have not been denied by the learned State counsel.
6. 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.
7. The applicant is in custody for more than one and a half years. For more than a year, no progress has been done and not even a single witness has been examined.
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 pre-trial detention without progress in the case can lead to the granting of bail, even in serious offenses under ....
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....
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 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.
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 decision emphasized the importance of considering the entirety of facts and the lack of substantial evidence against the applicant in granting 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
