Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Om Parkash @ Parkash v. State of Haryana - CRM-30410-m-2006 [2006] RD-P&H 4266 (17 July 2006)

Crl.Misc.No.30410.M of 2006 ::1::

Om Parkash @ Parkash vs State of Haryana Present : Mr.K.S.Dhaliwal, Advocate,

for the petitioner.


The petitioner seeks grant of regular bail in case FIR No.237, dated 12.11.2005, registered under Sections 15/61/85 of the NDPS Act, at Police Station Siwan, District Kaithal.

Counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has been falsely implicated. He has been behind bars since 12.11.2005 and though the recovery is of 150 kgs. of poppy husk, a commercial quantity, the petitioner be released on bail.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the paper book.

In view of the commercial quantity of narcotics, allegedly recovered, no ground to release the petitioner on bail.

However, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Salem Advocate Bar Association, Tamil Nadu vs Union of India, 2005(3) CCC 420, has issued directions, with respect to disposal of criminal trials. Relevant part of the judgment reads as follows :- " V. Criminal Trials and Criminal Appeals to Subordinate Courts

(a) Criminal Trials

1. Criminal Trials should be classified based on offence, sentence and whether the accused is on bail or in jail. Capital punishment, rape and cases involving sexual offences or dowry deaths should be kept in Track I. Other cases where the accused is not Crl.Misc.No.30410.M of 2006 ::2::

granted bail and is in jail, should be kept in Track II.

Cases which affect a large number of persons such as cases of mass cheating, economic offences, illicit liquor tragedy and food adulteration cases etc. should be kept in Track III. Offences which are tried by special courts such as POTA, TADA, NDPS, Prevention of Corruption Act, etc. should be kept in Track IV. Track V-all other offences.

The endeavour should be to complete Track I cases within a period of nine months. Track-II and Track-III cases within twelve months and Track IV within fifteen months. "

A perusal of the aforementioned judgment makes it abundantly clear that cases, under the NDPS Act, fall within Track IV.

Trials, with respect to cases falling in Track IV, are required to be disposed of within 15 months. The trial, in the present case, has been pending for about 8 months. Expeditious conclusion of trials is the essence of administration of justice, moreso where accused are incarcerated. Delay in conclusion of trials results in torturous consequences for all accused, complainants and witnesses.

In view of what has been stated above, the present petition is disposed of with a direction that the trial Court shall make every endeavour to conclude the trial expeditiously. Needless to say that the aforementioned direction would be subject to the accused cooperating during the trial.


July 18, 2006. JUDGE


Crl.Misc.No.30410.M of 2006 ::3::


Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites


dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.