Himachal Pradesh High Court Grants Bail to a Repeat Offender with Four Prior Charges Due to the COVID-19 Pandemic

Must Read

Madras High Court Observes Unexplained Delay in Procedural Safeguards, Quashes Detention Through Writ Petition

A Writ Petition was filed under Article 226 to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus. The petitioner P. Lakshmi,...

UK Court of Appeal Rules Home Department’s Deportation Policy of Immigrants Unlawful

Britain’s Court of Appeal quashed the Home Department’s deportation policy, declaring it unlawful; criticizing it for being too stringent...

Inordinate and Unexplained Delay in Considering Representation by Government Renders Detention Order Illegal: Madras High Court

A Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution was filed in the Madras High Court to declare the detention...

Privy Council Clarifies Approach To Winding up in “Deadlock” Cases in the Case of Chu v. Lau

The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council clarified several aspects of the law concerning just and equitable winding-up petitions,...

Madras High Court Directs Hospital To Submit Necessary Medical Reports to Authorization Committee for Approval of Kidney Transplant

A Writ Petition was filed under Article 226 to issue a Writ of Mandamus to K.G. Hospital, Coimbatore by...

Punjab Woman Evokes Petition for Protection Fearing Honour Killing

In the case of Divya Mattu and another vs State of Punjab and others, the petitioner, Divya, fearing honour...

Follow us

In the case of Veero Devi v. State of Himachal Pradesh, the petitioner had filed for bail due to the pandemic. She was under the custody for alleged possession of heroin. The Court granted the bail in view of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic.

Facts of the case

A police party, while being on patrolling duty, noticed the petitioner walking down a road. Seeing the patrolling party, the petitioner changed her movement in an abrupt manner. She then allegedly threw a packet on the side of the road. This sudden movement caught the suspicion of the police. They caught her and resultantly, collected the packet she threw away.

On investigation, they found that the packet had 6.68 grams of heroin in it. The police arrested the petitioner and lodged an FIR against her. The FIR was lodged under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act and the Code of Criminal Procedure. Earlier, the Court did not grant her the bail. The Court rejected the bail as the petitioner had four prior cases registered against her.

Arguments made by the Petitioner

The counsel argued that the petitioner was not in the position to abscond, as she is a local resident. Second, the heroin found was of intermediate quantity. Further, the counsel stated that the petitioner will not tamper or interfere with the prosecution’s case. If bail is granted, the counsel stated that the petitioner will abide with all the conditions.

Arguments made by the Respondent

The respondent’s counsel argued that the petitioner has already four cases registered against her. Further, all four cases registered against her were under the same statutes. Hence, the Court should not grant bail to her.

Court’s Observations

The Court stated that the four prior cases served as the petitioner’s criminal antecedents. Now, she committed the same offence again. Thus, the petitioner had not mended her actions.

The Court observed that the Petitioner had been in jail for four months. Moreover, the investigation was almost completed. In view of COVID-19, the Court was willing to give the petitioner one last chance. This would provide her with a chance to mend her ways.

Court’s Judgement

The Court granted the bail with a personal bond of Rs. 25,000. The Court stated that if the petitioner commits the same offence again, the bail will be dismissed.  Additionally, the petitioner must not tamper the evidence or manipulate the investigation.


Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgements from the court. Follow us on Google News, InstagramLinkedInFacebook & Twitter. You can also subscribe for our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.

 

Latest News

Madras High Court Observes Unexplained Delay in Procedural Safeguards, Quashes Detention Through Writ Petition

A Writ Petition was filed under Article 226 to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus. The petitioner P. Lakshmi, called for records of the...

UK Court of Appeal Rules Home Department’s Deportation Policy of Immigrants Unlawful

Britain’s Court of Appeal quashed the Home Department’s deportation policy, declaring it unlawful; criticizing it for being too stringent on immigrants to comply with. Background The...

Inordinate and Unexplained Delay in Considering Representation by Government Renders Detention Order Illegal: Madras High Court

A Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution was filed in the Madras High Court to declare the detention order of the husband of...

Privy Council Clarifies Approach To Winding up in “Deadlock” Cases in the Case of Chu v. Lau

The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council clarified several aspects of the law concerning just and equitable winding-up petitions, as well as shareholder disputes...

Madras High Court Directs Hospital To Submit Necessary Medical Reports to Authorization Committee for Approval of Kidney Transplant

A Writ Petition was filed under Article 226 to issue a Writ of Mandamus to K.G. Hospital, Coimbatore by P. Sankar & V. Sobana....

Punjab Woman Evokes Petition for Protection Fearing Honour Killing

In the case of Divya Mattu and another vs State of Punjab and others, the petitioner, Divya, fearing honour killing against her by her...

Punjab Woman Accuses Punjab Police of Keeping Husband in Illegal Custody and Framing Him in a False Case

In the case of Geeta v the State of Punjab, the petitioner evoked a writ petition of habeas corpus as she claimed that her...

Addition of Words as Prefixes or Suffixes Is an Infringement of a Registered Trademark: Delhi High Court

Justice Jayanth Nath allowed the Times Group to use its registered trademark “Newshour”, in the case of Bennett Coleman and Co. Ltd v. ARG Outlier...

Just Because the Deceased Did Not Have License, Does Not Imply He Was Negligent: Chhattisgarh High Court

In the case of Hemlal & Others v. Dayaram & Others, a Single Bench of Chhattisgarh High Court consisting of Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal annunciated various...

Hoardings Are Movable Property Under Section 2(3) of DMC Act Subject To the Twin Test: Delhi High Court

Delhi High Court in the case of Delhi International Airport v South Delhi Metropolitan Corporation discussed in detail the provision under Section 2(3) of the DMC...

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -