Ram Kishore @ Komal v. State Of Haryana
!" #$%$!&'(
' )* + + ,
- % & '
!
"
#
$ "
%%%%
+ ,. - /
&
' (!
) )
) ( *#
+,- &.
./ +.++
++0 1+2
)
3
3 * ( +
!
(
5.
$'
+- .2 +.+-
(
.+ #(
(
( #(
) (
(
6
!
-
(
.5
.-
(
) (
(
!
) )
) (
7 &8 ! .8! (
6
'
(
!)
( +- .2 +.+-!
!
.+ $ )
)
( (
) (
7 )
)
'
.+
!)
( ('
+- .2 +.+- $
)
!
( ('
+- .2 +.+- '
! !
.+ .& &9 ! !
#
!
(
8.
As held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mohd Muslim @ Hussain Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), 2023 LiveLaw(SC)260, this Court is of the opinion that the case of the petitioner is covered by the ratio of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In the abovesaid case Hon'ble Supreme Court
CRM-M-24113-2024 (O&M) -3expressed its views as under:-
19. A plain and literal interpretation of the conditions under Section 37 (i.e., that Court should be satisfied that the accused is not guilty and would not commit any offence) would effectively exclude grant of bail altogether, resulting in punitive detention and unsanctioned preventive detention as well. Therefore, the only manner in which such special conditions as enacted under Section 37 can be considered within constitutional parameters is where the court is reasonably satisfied on a prima facie look at the material on record (whenever the bail application is made) that the accused is not guilty. Any other interpretation, would result in complete denial of the bail to a person accused of offences such as those enacted under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.
20. xxxxx 21.
.....it would be important to reflect that laws which impose stringent conditions for grant of bail, may be necessary in public interest; yet, if trials are not concluded in time, the injustice wrecked on the individual is immeasurable.
22. xxxxx
! "#$%& '
() ) * +
, ,
)
, ,
, -
&
.
) )
, *
$
) ! (
(
(( (
' &.
$' !
))
) ! ) ((
)
'
)
) (
) , the interim bail granted by this Court vide order dated 24.09.2024 is made absolute )
(
6
&&
!
+ ,
( / :
);
< = ;
:
(
< = ;