https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=765249 In an NDPS case involving commercial quantity, the court treated disputes on false implication, compliance with Sections 42 and 50, and the prosecution evidence as matters for trial, but found the decisive factor to be the accused's Article 21 right to speedy trial. Because the petitioner had remained in custody for more than two years and eight months, the trial had not progressed materially, only a few witnesses had been examined, and the delay was not attributable to the accused, prolonged incarceration could not be justified solely by Section 37 of the NDPS Act. Regular bail was therefore held to be justified and granted. en-us Fri, 10 Jan 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 29 Jan 2025 09:00:42 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=765249 In an NDPS case involving commercial quantity, the court treated disputes on false implication, compliance with Sections 42 and 50, and the prosecution evidence as matters for trial, but found the decisive factor to be the accused's Article 21 right to speedy trial. Because the petitioner had remained in custody for more than two years and eight months, the trial had not progressed materially, only a few witnesses had been examined, and the delay was not attributable to the accused, prolonged incarceration could not be justified solely by Section 37 of the NDPS Act. Regular bail was therefore held to be justified and granted. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 10 Jan 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=765249