Supreme Court of India Judgements

46550 Judgements hosted as on 16/07/2024 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Bail Granted

BAIL GRANTED NDPS – PROLONGED INCARCERATION – It is to observe that failure to conclude the trial within a reasonable time resulting in prolonged incarceration militates against the precious fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, and as such, conditional liberty overriding the statutory embargo created under Section 37(1)(b) of the NDPS Act may, in such circumstances, be considered.

Bysclaw

Jun 9, 2024

It is to observe that failure to conclude the trial within a reasonable time resulting in prolonged incarceration militates against the precious fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, and as such, conditional liberty overriding the statutory embargo created under Section 37(1)(b) of the NDPS Act may, in such circumstances, be considered.

ITEM NO.4 COURT NO.2 SECTION II-A
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 4648/2024
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 02-01-2024
in MCRC No. 50393/2023 passed by the High Court of M.P. at Indore)
ANKUR CHAUDHARY Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Respondent(s)
(IA No. 78978/2024 – EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED
JUDGMENT and IA No. 78979/2024 – EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.)
Date : 28-05-2024 This matter was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE J.K. MAHESHWARI
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K.V. VISWANATHAN
(VACATION BENCH)
For Petitioner(s)
Mr. Sidharth Dave, Sr. Adv.
Ms. Akriti, Adv.
Mr. Rajesh Ranjan, Adv.
Mr. Adil Vasudeva, Adv.
Mr. Prateek Yadav, AOR

For Respondent(s)
Mr. Pashupathi Nath Razdan, AOR
Mr. Mirza Kayesh Begg, Adv.
Ms. Maitreyee Jagat Joshi,, Adv.
Mr. Astik Gupta, Adv.
Ms. Akanksha Tomar, Adv.
Mr. Argha Roy, Adv.
Ms. Ojaswini Gupta,Adv.
Ms. Ruby, Adv.

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
The petitioner is in custody since last more than two
years in connection with FIR No. 305 of 2022 registered at
1
SLP (Crl.) No. 4648/2024
Police Station­Chandan Nagar, District Indore (M.P.) for the
offence punishable under Section 8 read with Sections 22 and
29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act,
1985 (hereinafter referred to as “NDPS Act” for brevity).
Previously, when the petitioner approached this Court,
vide order dated 15.5.2023, his bail petition was not
entertained. However, liberty was granted to approach the trial
Court for bail, after the examination of the panch witnesses.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
panch witnesses viz., PW3 (Sunder Pal) and PW4 (Vinod
Rathore) have been examined and they have not supported the
case of prosecution. On being applied afresh, the trial Court
rejected his bail application only on the pretext that the
Investigation Officer may also be a panch witness who has yet
to examine. The High Court also rejected the bail application
affirming those findings by the impugned order.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondentState submits that in the facts of this case, the Investigation
Officer may be treated as panch witness; therefore, the High
Court has rightly rejected the bail application.
Heard learned counsel for the parties. We have
2
SLP (Crl.) No. 4648/2024
considered the facts and all attending circumstances including
the period of custody and also the previous orders where this
Court while rejecting the bail was of the view that after the
panch witness depose, fresh recourse may be taken.
Now, on examination, the panch witnesses have not
supported the case of prosecution. On facts, we are not
inclined to consider the Investigation Officer as a panch
witness. It is to observe that failure to conclude the trial within
a reasonable time resulting in prolonged incarceration militates
against the precious fundamental right guaranteed under
Article 21 of the Constitution of India, and as such, conditional
liberty overriding the statutory embargo created under Section
37(1)(b) of the NDPS Act may, in such circumstances, be
considered.
In view of the above, we are inclined to allow this petition
and direct to enlarge the petitioner on bail on furnishing the
suitable bail bonds and sureties and on such other terms and
conditions as may be deemed fit by the trial Court.
It is needless to observe that the petitioner shall regularly
attend the trial until exempted by the orders of the Court.
Violation, if any, may give a cause to take recourse as
3
SLP (Crl.) No. 4648/2024
permissible and the trial Court would be at liberty to do the
needful.
Accordingly, and in view of the foregoing, this Special
Leave Petition stands allowed. Pending applications(s), if any,
shall stand disposed of.
(NIDHI AHUJA) (VIRENDER SINGH)
AR-cum-PS BRANCH OFFICER
4

By sclaw

Related Post

Bail Granted

Bhima Koregaon Case : Supreme Court Refuses To Extend Stay On Gautam Navlakha’s Bail, Says Trial May Take Years To Complete

May 26, 2024 sclaw
Bail Granted

Supreme Court Grants Bail To 2 Kerala Advocates Accused Of Raping Client

May 26, 2024 sclaw
Bail Granted

A. Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 – Section 19 – Arvind Kejriwal, the appellant, is challenging his arrest by the Directorate of Enforcement on 21.03.2024, which was upheld by the trial court and the High Court of Delhi – The case involves legal pleas concerning the scope and violation of Section 19 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 – The Court is considering granting interim bail to Kejriwal due to the ongoing 18th Lok Sabha General Elections and the importance of his participation as a political leader – The Court is taking a holistic view given the elections and Kejriwal’s role as Chief Minister and a national party leader, despite the serious accusations against him – The Court refers to case law on the power to grant interim bail and emphasizes the peculiarities of the case and the surrounding circumstances – The Court grants interim bail to Arvind Kejriwal until 1st of June 2024, with specific conditions, and states that this should not be seen as an opinion on the merits of the case – Kejriwal is to surrender on 2nd of June 2024 on the following conditions (a) he shall furnish bail bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Jail Superintendent; (b) he shall not visit the Office of the Chief Minister and the Delhi Secretariat; (c) he shall be bound by the statement made on his behalf that he shall not sign official files unless it is required and necessary for obtaining clearance/ approval of the Lieutenant Governor of Delhi; (d) he will not make any comment with regard to his role in the present case; and (e) he will not interact with any of the witnesses and/or have access to any official files connected with the case. B. Bail – The power to grant interim bail is an inherent power of the court, which can be exercised under compelling circumstances and grounds, even when regular bail would not be justified. This power is commonly exercised in a number of cases, including cases involving politicians. C. Bail – The court must consider the peculiarities of each case and the surrounding circumstances when granting interim bail. In this case, the court considered the fact that the appellant, Arvind Kejriwal, was the Chief Minister of Delhi and a leader of one of the national parties, had no criminal antecedents, and was not a threat to society. D. Bail – The court rejected the argument that granting interim bail to politicians sets a precedent for special treatment – The court noted that the decision was based on the peculiarities of the case and the fact that the 18th Lok Sabha General Elections were being held. E. Bail – The court held that imposing conditions on interim bail, such as prohibiting the accused from participating in political activities, directly or indirectly, would breach their fundamental rights – The court deleted the condition imposed by the High Court in a similar case, stating that the appellant shall not be involved in any political activities, directly or indirectly. F. Bail – The court clarified that the grant of interim bail does not express an opinion on the merits of the case or the criminal appeal which is pending consideration before the court.

May 11, 2024 sclaw

Leave a Reply

You missed

Tenders & Contracts

E-auction — Typographical error — e-auction for a manganese and iron ore block submitted a bid of 140.10% instead of its intended bid of 104.10% due to a typographical error — The court allowed the company’s appeal and ordered a fresh e-auction for the block — The company was also ordered to pay Rs 3 crore ($400,000) to the state as compensation for the delay caused by its error.

Jul 20, 2024 sclaw
Corporate

Drugs (Price Control) Order, 1995 — Paragraph 13 — Recovery of overcharged amount of drugs — Demand made by the National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority (NPPA) to recover an overcharged amount for a Cloxacillin-based drug formulation called Roscilox — The Court found that the appellant’s admission of purchasing the drug directly from the manufacturer made it liable under Paragraph 13 of the Drugs (Price Control) Order, 1995 (DPCO) — The Court also rejected the appellant’s claim that it was only a ‘dealer’ and not a ‘distributor’ under the DPCO, as the definitions of these terms under the DPCO are not mutually exclusive — The Court further noted that the objective of the DPCO is to control the prices of medicinal drug formulations and ensure they are made available to the common man, and thus, the provision should not be subjected to a restricted or hidebound interpretation — Appeal Dismissed.

Jul 20, 2024 sclaw
I P C Matrimonial

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 498A, 323 and 504 — Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 — Sections 3 and 4 — Irretrievable breakdown of marriage as a ground for divorce — The court recognized that irretrievable breakdown of marriage, where the parties have been living separately for a significant period and all efforts at reconciliation have failed, can be a valid ground for divorce — This expands the grounds for divorce beyond the traditional grounds mentioned in the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.— One-time settlement as a mode of permanent alimony — The court allowed the parties to opt for a one-time settlement as a mode of permanent alimony, instead of periodic payments — This provides flexibility to the parties in resolving their financial obligations towards each other.

Jul 20, 2024 sclaw
Service

Bihar City Manager Cadre (Appointment and Service Conditions) Rules, 2014 — Rules 5 and 11 — The Supreme Court has dismissed appeals challenging the validity of a judgment by the Patna High Court, which allowed a candidate to be considered for appointment as a City Manager in Bihar — The candidate had scored to meet up the minimum qualifying marks of 32% — The court found that the minimum qualifying marks were only for the written test and not for the overall selection process — The court also rejected the appellants’ reliance on an executive order issued in 2007, stating that it was not applicable to the rules issued in 2014 — The court concluded that the candidate was eligible and qualified to be considered for appointment as she had met the minimum qualifying marks in the written test.

Jul 20, 2024 sclaw