NDPS case -- Default bail – Petitioner ought to be granted bail in any case since he has already remained in detention for more than 8½ months and there is no involvement in any other case under the NDPS Act, and on account of on-going Covid-19 Pandemic, the trial which could not commence is likely to take a considerable time in its completion -- Validity of Division Bench's decision in Ajit Singh alias Jeeta's case (Law Today Live Doc. Id. 14121) cannot at this stage be said to be altogether beyond controversy, since the matter has now been referred for consideration afresh in view of the decision in Julfkar's case (Law Today Live Doc. Id. 15385) which has subsequently been followed in the case of Rinku vs. State of Haryana (Law Today Live Doc. Id. 15615) -- Criminal Revision allowed at this stage and the Petitioner is permitted to be conditionally released on bail to the satisfaction of the Ld. Trial Court concerned. In case of any different result coming forth from that in the decision in Ajit Singh alias Jeeta's case, the State would be at liberty to seek cancellation/modification of the order, if warranted at that stage.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 18.11.2020

NDPS case – Regular bail -- Recovery of 610 capsules of Tramadol Hydrochloride -- There is no other case pending against the petitioner -- Court deemed it appropriate to release him on interim bail till the receipt of FSL report -- Petition disposed of and the petitioner is directed to be released on interim bail. Inderjeet Singh @ Laddi’s case 2014(3) RCR (Criminal) 953 relied.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 09.11.2020

NDPS case -- Default bail -- Recovery of 1300 tablets of Alprozolam and 1000 tablets of Tramadol Hydrochloride -- Incomplete challan was presented in the Court -- No request was submitted to the said Court by the Investigating Agency seeking extension of time for the purpose of investigation of the case -- On the expiry of a period of 180 days, the accused has invoked the jurisdiction of the Court seeking default bail – Subsequent presentation of the report of FSL will not extinguish the right of the petitioner to seek a default bail -- Petitioner held entitled to the benefit of default bail.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 03.11.2020

NDPS case – Default bail -- By virtue of the doctrine of stare decisis, the Single Bench judgements in Akash Kumar alias Sunny (Law Today Live Doc. Id. 14977) and Shankar (CRM No. M-44412 of 2019/20th December 2019) are binding as they lay down a proposition of law although at variance with the law laid down by the Division Bench in Ajit Singh alias Jeeta (Law Today Live Doc. Id. 14121) -- Smaller Bench could not have declared the judgement of a larger Bench to be per incuriam -- Judicial discipline demands that a reference be made to a Division Bench regarding the validity and correctness of the aforementioned Single Bench judgements -- File sent to Hon'ble the Chief Justice with a request to constitute a Division Bench for consideration of this matter -- Meanwhile, direction given that petitioner be released on bail.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 16.09.2020

NDPS Matter – Default bail – Right of -- It is essential that the report of the Chemical Examiner be included in the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. and without which it can at best be termed to be an incomplete challan -- If it is not submitted within the requisite period of 180 days, it would essentially result in a default benefit to the accused unless an application is moved by the Investigating Agency apprising the Court of status of investigation with a prayer for extension of time to the satisfaction of the Court.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 30.11.2018