Bharti Singh and husband Haarsh Limbachiyaa's bail in the drug case will remain in effect, NCB is responsible for not opposing pleas | Business Upturn

Bharti Singh and husband Haarsh Limbachiyaa’s bail in the drug case will remain in effect, NCB is responsible for not opposing pleas

On November 22, 2020, the pair was taken into custody after 86.5 gm of marijuana was discovered in their production house office, and home.

The bail that was granted to comedian Bharti Singh and her spouse Harsh Limbachiya by a magistrate in 2020 in connection with a drugs charge has been upheld by a special court.

The Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB) was blamed by the court for failing to contest the defendants’ bail requests or maintain the prosecutor or investigating officer’s attendance in court.

On November 22, 2020, the pair was taken into custody after 86.5 grammes of marijuana was discovered in their production house, office, and home. They received respite the following day when they requested for bail that day, and the matter was postponed until the NCB’s reaction the following day.

The NCB had asked for the relief to be revoked, claiming that the bail granted was unlawful and that it wasn’t given an opportunity to be heard. The prosecution was not denied the chance to object to the applications, the court stated in its order from May 29 that was made public on Tuesday.

In actuality, the prosecution made a mistake by missing the chance to respond to and contest the bail requests. It further emphasised the fact that the NCB did not submit an application for additional time to provide its response.

The couple’s attorney had objected to the plea, arguing that because the case only included a minor amount of drugs, the prosecution did not need to be heard—unlike in a case involving a commercial quantity under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS).

In addition, Special Judge VV Patil emphasised that under rulings from the Supreme Court and high courts, bail that has already been granted cannot be revoked unless there is an attempt to obstruct the administration of justice, evade the course of law, or misuse of relief.

In this case, according to Judge Patil, there are no such claims, and “absolutely no grounds” have been established to rescind the bail.