Login Register
Follow Us

SC bail to man facing 20-yr jail in drugs case

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court has granted bail to a man from Himachal Pradesh convicted in a drugs trafficking case and sentenced to 20-year imprisonment, noting that the state High Court did not deal with the reasons recorded by the trial court for his acquittal.

Show comments

Satya Prakash  

Tribune News Service

New Delhi, March 20

The Supreme Court has granted bail to a man from Himachal Pradesh convicted in a drugs trafficking case and sentenced to 20-year imprisonment, noting that the state High Court did not deal with the reasons recorded by the trial court for his acquittal.

“We have gone through the judgment of the High Court and are prima facie satisfied that the reasons, which weighed with the trial court while recording acquittal, were not dealt with by the High Court,” a Bench, headed by Justice UU Lalit, said granting bail to accused Shiv Ram. “In our view, the appellant is, therefore, entitled to be released on bail during the pendency of the appeal,” the Bench said in an order earlier this month.

Shiv Ram — who was allegedly caught sitting on the rear seat of a vehicle with 8.6 kg charas in a black bag on his lap supplied by Sita Ram, was charged with certain offences under the NDPS Act, 1985. However, he acquitted by a Special Judge, Kinnaur (Sessions Division) at Rampur Bushahr on August 6, 2011, along with his alleged accomplice. 

On an appeal filed by the state, the High Court on September 6, 2016, affirmed the acquittal of accused Sita Ram but reversed the acquittal of Shiv Ram. It held that the recovery of contraband was fully established from Shiv Ram on the basis of the testimony of official witnesses and, accordingly, sentenced him to 20-year imprisonment with fine.

Shiv Ram’s counsel Anil Nag contended before the Supreme Court that the court overlooked certain vital aspects of the case. Nag pointed out that no independent witness was associated even though there were shops and houses near the place of the occurrence. Also, no gazetted officer or magistrate was called to conduct personal search of the appellant and there was overwriting in the consent memo prepared on the spot, he contended.

Show comments
Show comments

Top News

Most Read In 24 Hours