The Calcutta High Court has called for action against two judicial officers, namely the Chief Judicial Magistrate and District and Sessions Judge(NDPS), for their failure to offer a legal aid lawyer to an NDPS accused who had been unrepresented in the proceedings before the court.
| Site | Subscription Price | Supported Countries |
|---|---|---|
| FuboTV | 5-day free trial, $10–$90/month | USA, Canada, Spain |
| ESPN+ | $11.99/month | USA |
| Fanatiz | €6.99–€10.99/month | Worldwide |
| StreamLocator | 7-day free trial, no credit card required! $9.90/month | Worldwide |
While granting bail to the accused, Justice Krishna Rao observed that the accused was produced before the Chief Judicial Magistrate and Sessions Judge after his arrest, but neither judicial officer provided him with legal representation.
“This order be forwarded to the Registrar General of the High Court for information of the Hon’ble the Chief Justice and necessary action against the Chief Judicial Magistrate and District and Sessions Judge (NDPS), Alipurduar for not offering Advocate from Legal Aid to the petitioner as at the time of production, the petitioner was undefended,” the bench directed.
Court noted that the state had failed to produce any evidence to show that the accused had been informed of his grounds of arrest. Thus, the court held:
| Site | Subscription Price | Supported Countries |
|---|---|---|
| FuboTV | 5-day free trial, $10–$90/month | USA, Canada, Spain |
| ESPN+ | $11.99/month | USA |
| Fanatiz | €6.99–€10.99/month | Worldwide |
| StreamLocator | 7-day free trial, no credit card required! $9.90/month | Worldwide |
“On completion of 3 days police remand, the petitioner was produced before the Learned Judge, NDPS Court on 1st April, 2024 and on that day, the petitioner was taken into judicial custody but the Learned Judge has not provided any Advocate from Legal Aid to defend the petitioner as the petitioner was undefended. Considering the above, this Court finds that while arresting the petitioner, the Arresting Officer has violated the provisions of Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India and Section 52(1) of the NDPS Act, 1985 by not informing the ground of arrest to the petitioner at the time of arrest of the petitioner.”
Accordingly, the court granted bail while observing that Article 22 was a fundamental right available to the accused, and by not conveying the grounds of arrest to him in a manner he could understand, the state had violated his fundamental rights.
Click here to read order
