HC grants anticipatory bail to accused in NDPS Act case
With this, the high court rejected the preliminary objection raised by the state that such relief was barred under Section 438(6) of the CrPC as amended in Uttar Pradesh. The court held that with the repeal of the CrPC and the coming into force of BNSS 2023 (Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita), the amended section 482 of the BNSS has superseded the stated amendment.
Justice Manish Mathur passed this order recently on an application moved by Sudhir Kumar Chaurasia of Barabanki district seeking anticipatory bail under offence of the NDPS Act.
The applicant had earlier been granted anticipatory bail under Sections 420, 467, 468, and 471 of the Indian Penal Code. A second anticipatory bail application was filed after Section 22(c) of the NDPS Act, 1985 was added to the FIR. The prosecution objected, relying on section 438(6) of the CrPC as amended by U.P. Act No. 4 of 2019, which prohibits anticipatory bail in NDPS and certain other serious offences.
The state counsel contended that the U.P. amendment continued to apply in light of the saving clause under Section 531(2)(b) of the BNSS and Section 6A of the general clauses Act, 1897. It was argued that the amendment should be considered a notification or order under a repealed law and was thus saved.
The applicant's counsel submitted that the state amendment was a legislative enactment and not protected by section 531(2)(b), and that the field was now occupied exclusively by Section 482 of the BNSS.
The court held that the U.P. amendment to Section 438 CrPC, which barred anticipatory bail for NDPS offences, does not survive the repeal of the CrPC and enactment of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The court rejected the state's argument that the U.P. amendment could be saved under section 531(2)(b) BNSS or section 6 of the general clauses Act.
The court also referred to Article 254(2) of the Constitution, observing that although the U.P. amendment had received Presidential assent, the enactment of Section 482 BNSS, being a central legislation enacted later, would prevail in case of repugnancy.
The court said, 'Even in terms of the proviso to Article 254(2) of the Constitution of India, there being a considerable difference in the provisions of anticipatory bail between Act No. 4 of 2019 and Section 482 BNSS 2023… it is the provisions of re-enacted Section 482 BNSS 2023, which shall prevail.'
Accordingly, the court allowed the anticipatory bail application moved by the applicant.
MANOJ KUMAR SINGH
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hans India
37 minutes ago
- Hans India
HC expresses deep concern over Rachakonda police meddling in civil disputes
Hyderabad: The Telangana High Court single bench of Justice Tadakamalla Vinod Kumar on Tuesday expressed deep concern and strongly disapproved action of the Rachakonda police for meddling in civil disputes and settling them in the Nagole police station itself in lieu of Rs.55 lakh. The judge was astonished to know from the counsel for petitioner Pamu Sudershanam that the Nagole police had confined him from morning to evening on June 19. The court while expressing shock at such an appalling action of the police, summoned Sudheer Babu, Rachakonda Commissioner and Nagole SHO to appear before it and explain reasons for the SHO in registering a crime against Sudershanam in a civil dispute, which is pending before a court since 2000. However, in adherence to court orders, Babu appeared before the judge 'through video conference'; the SHO appeared in person. Justice Vinod Kumar found fault with the police in interfering in a civil dispute… showing over indulgence in settling it in the station pertaining to a private property in plot 65, Krushi Nagar, Bandlaguda, despite the fact that three civil cases were in a court, apart from an injunction order in favour of the petitioner. The judge observed how the police can be so oblivious about court orders, showing scant regard… and show deep interest in solving a civil dispute. He observed that 'police stations in the State have became 'settlement addas'. This trend is at its peak, after the Telangana State was formed'. The Nagole SHO detained Sudershanam in PS and threatened him to settle the dispute pertaining to the property with S Janga Reddy, Thurpati Krishna and Thurpati Ramchander, who paid the SHO Rs. 55 lakh to ensure the dispute is settled in their favour. The petitioner was threatened with criminal cases by the police. The judge said the DGP should take action in enlightening the police officers in State on 'civil disputes'. Justice Vinod Kumar adjudicated the writ filed by Sudharshanam, who complained that the Nagole police indulged in settlement of civil disputes in PS pertaining to his plot in Nagole circle with real estate agents by paying Rs 55 lakh. Hearing in the case was adjourned to second week of July. Batch of six writ petitions seeking 'judicial probe' into Group-1 exam On Tuesday the High Court single bench of Namavarapu Rajeshwar Rao heard the batch of six writ petitions filed by candidates who were not able to get a rank in the general ranking list of Group-1 Main exam seeking a direction to order a judicial probe into the entire selection process of candidates. Rachna, senior counsel for petitioners in one writ, contended that the Telangana Public Service Commission erred in issuing two different hall-tickets to the candidates. She said all the candidates who cleared the Preliminary Group 1 exam were issued only one hall-ticket, whereas the TGPSC vide its web note of October 9, 2024 had directed the successful candidates to download second fresh hall-ticket, in sheer violation of rules. She contended that the practice of issuing two hall-tickets--one for Preliminary and another for the Mains--is not followed by the UPSC. On April 17, 2025, Justice Rao had directed TGPSC 'not to issue appointment orders' to all selected candidates in Group-1 exam, but directed the TGPSC to go ahead with certificate verification of the selected candidates. Counsels for the petitioners sought a 'stay' on the notification and evaluation process for the recruitment notification no 02/2024, dated February 19, and a 'judicial probe' into the evaluation alleging that several irregularities and inconsistencies had cropped up while conducting the Group-1 exam on October 21. The judge heard the writ filed by Parmesh Matta and 19 others and five other petitions. The hearing was adjourned to Wednesday for further arguments.
Time of India
41 minutes ago
- Time of India
TSPSC Group I exam controversy: Pre-printed hall tickets and Centre irregularities alleged; Telangana HC resumes hearing
HYDERABAD: The Telangana high court on Tuesday resumed detailed arguments in the ongoing case challenging the conduct of the Group I Mains examination held by the Telangana State Public Service Commission. The case, filed by multiple candidates, alleges manipulation and favouritism in the exam process. Appearing before Justice Namavarapu Rajeshwar Rao, the petitioners' counsels alleged that key elements such as hall ticket numbers, examination centres, invigilators and evaluators had been predetermined for certain "favoured" candidates. Particular concern was raised about centres 18 and 19, which produced 14.8% of the qualified candidates. "Neighbouring centres recorded minimal or even zero qualifying percentages," one counsel noted, implying manipulation in centre allocation and evaluation. You Can Also Check: Hyderabad AQI | Weather in Hyderabad | Bank Holidays in Hyderabad | Public Holidays in Hyderabad The TSPSC claimed that centre allocation was done through randomisation, but the counsel argued that hall ticket numbers were pre-printed on the answer booklets, enabling evaluators to identify candidates and thus compromising their anonymity. Another major allegation concerned the issuance of fresh hall tickets for the main examination. The petitioners claimed that, despite being justified by the TSPSC as being for 'administrative convenience,' this move violated its own notification and allowed room for targeted favouritism. The HC has scheduled further arguments on Wednesday, indicating close judicial scrutiny of one of the state's most prestigious public recruitment exams. Get the latest lifestyle updates on Times of India, along with Doctor's Day 2025 , messages and quotes!
Indian Express
an hour ago
- Indian Express
Now, Vigilance takes Majithia to his office; Ganieve stopped from entering
The Punjab Vigilance Bureau Tuesday took Shiromani Akali Dal leader Bikram Singh Majithia to his office in Amritsar's Majitha Tuesday in connection with a disproportionate assets case registered against the former minister. A heavy police force was deployed near Majithia's office with barricades raised to prevent his party's supporters from reaching there. The vigilance bureau team remained for over an hour at the office. Majithia's wife Ganieve Kaur, an Akali MLA from the Majitha seat, and her supporters were stopped from heading towards the office even before the vigilance bureau officials reached there. She could be seen arguing with police officials, saying the vigilance bureau team could undertake a search operation in the office, but 'I should be allowed to go'. 'I am an elected MLA. I have come here with my lawyer. All others will stay outside. Our entire property has already been investigated. I have no weapon. I will sit in my office. I am not going to break any law,' Kaur said and asked police officials for any written order that bars her from going to the office. She lashed out at the AAP government, accusing it of targeting her husband for 'exposing' its 'failures'. A day earlier, the vigilance bureau took Majithia to Himachal Pradesh for verification of property allegedly linked to his family. The Punjab Vigilance Bureau arrested Majithia, the brother-in-law of Shiromani Akali Dal president Sukhbir Singh Badal, on June 25 over money laundering allegations involving Rs 540 crore of 'drug money'. He was sent to a seven-day vigilance bureau remand on June 26. Meanwhile, the Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB) has also expressed interest in questioning Majithia. An NCB official has contacted the Vigilance Bureau, claiming that the case involves NDPS Act violations. The Aam Aadmi Party (AAP), however, has raised questions about the timing and intent of the NCB's intervention. Majithia moves HC, calls FIR against him 'political witch-hunting' Majithia Tuesday moved the Punjab and Haryana High Court challenging the disproportionate assets case filed against him by the Punjab Vigilance Bureau and termed it 'political witch-hunting' for criticising the AAP dispensation. In a petition filed through his counsel, Arshdeep Singh Cheema and Sartej Singh Narula, Majithia sought appropriate relief against the 'illegal' arrest and subsequent remand granted in the FIR registered under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 'The FIR is a result of political witch-hunting and vendetta, initiated by the present political dispensation with the sole object of maligning and harassing the petitioner who has been a vocal critic and political opponent,' read the petition. The petitioner submitted that the FIR registered against him is 'patently illegal' while his arrest was carried out in 'gross violation of settled legal procedures'. The petitioner was kept in illegal custody for over two hours prior to his official arrest at 11.20 am, read the petition. 'The remand application filed by the investigating agency lacked any concrete or urgent investigative ground and merely relied on broad, speculative allegations such as the petitioner's alleged influence, foreign connections, and general statements about the need to confront him with documents or digital devices,' it said. 'These assertions clearly reflect a motive to extract a confession or admission from the petitioner, in violation of the protection guaranteed under Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India,' said the plea. The petitioner submitted that the Supreme Court, by its detailed order on March 4, had refused custodial interrogation of the petitioner despite the same allegations being pressed before it via multiple affidavits filed by the Punjab government. 'The Hon'ble Court had instead directed the petitioner to cooperate with the SIT and join the investigation, which was fully complied with. Despite the petitioner's cooperation and the findings of the apex court, the state has once again resorted to seeking police custody by concealing material facts and misrepresenting urgency before the magistrate,' read the plea. The present petition, therefore, raises important questions of law and principle concerning abuse of criminal process, misuse of remand powers, and the right to fair investigation and liberty, it stated. Majithia prayed for appropriate reliefs, including quashing of the 'illegal' remand order and appropriate directions to prevent further 'abuse' of process. This FIR against Majithia stems from an ongoing investigation being conducted by a Punjab Police special investigation team into the 2021 drug case in which the Shiromani Akali Dal leader was booked under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act. The action was taken on the basis of a 2018 report of the anti-drug Special Task Force. Majithia spent more than five months in Patiala jail and walked out of prison in August 2022 after the Punjab and Haryana High Court granted him bail.
