JUDGMENT - GOKHALE H.L., J.:---The petitioner herein is a resident of Chennai and on the date of filing of this petition i.e. on 22-8-2003 she was in custody of Yerawada Central Prison, Pune. The petition places on record a very sorry state of affairs in as much as it is pointed out therein that inspite of her acquittal in N.D.P.S. Special Case No. 16 of 1991 by the Special Court in Mumbai and inspite of that order having been confirmed in appeal, by dismissing the appeal filed by respondent No. 3 Narcotics Control Bureau, which appeal bearing No. 484 of 1995 was dismissed by the High Court on 13-12-2000, the petitioner continued to be retained in custody. This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, therefore, invokes Articles 14, 19, 21 and 22 of the Constitution and seeks to challenge this illegal detention. This is prayer Clause (a) of this petition. In facts, Ms. Kaushik, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, informs, on a query from the Court, that she happened to visit Yerawada Central Prison, Pune in another legal aid matter when the petitioner met her and informed her about her plight which led to the filing of this petition.

2. The petition came up before an earlier Division Bench on 25-8-2003 when having noted this state of affairs, the Division Bench directed that the petitioner be released immediately from custody. The petition came up before another Division Bench on 10-9-2003 when it was noted that inspite of the earlier order passed on 25-8-2003 the petitioner had not been released. The Division Bench was required to pass another order on that date and ultimately the petitioner was released on 13-9-2003. In this order, passed on 10-9-2003, the Division Bench also directed the learned Public Prosecutor to take instructions and to find out whether any other similarly situated prisoners are still languishing in jail.

3. The relevant facts leading to this petition are that the petitioner was arrested on 29-10-1990 by respondent No. 3 Narcotics Control Bureau when she had boarded a flight to Zambia from Mumbai. The respondent No 3 had received an information that some narcotics were being carried on that flight. The petitioner was off-loaded. A certain baggage which was at the Airport was checked wherein heroin of the quantity of 1.4 kgs. was detected. It was the case of the prosecution that the baggage belonged to the petitioner. However, the prosecution failed to establish the charge to the hilt and the petitioner was acquitted by the judgment and Order dated 23-11-1993 in N.D.P.S. Special Case No. 16 of 1991 of the offences for which she was charged, namely, those under section 8(c) read with section 21, section 28 read with section 23 of the N.D.P.S. Act and section 135(1)(a) read with section 135(1)(ii) of the Customs Act.

4. All through out this period i.e. from the date of her arrest on 29-10-1990 until the judgment and her release, the petitioner was in custody. Thereafter she returned to her home town Chennai to join her family. The Narcotics Control Bureau filed an appeal bearing No. 484 of 1995 against this judgment. As is often done, after the appeal was admitted, a warrant was issued against the petitioner. She was arrested by the Narcotics Bureau in Chennai on 13-8-1998 and brought to Mumbai. Thereafter she was produced before the Court of Sessions on 21-8-1998. Now, in all such appeals against acquittal normally the accused, who are already acquitted in trial are required to give surety to assure their presence when the appeal is heard finally and they are released on bail. However, in the present case the petitioner did not apply for bail and, therefore, there was no occasion for her being released on giving an appropriate surety bond. She, therefore, continued to remain in custody during pendency of the appeal.

5. When the appeal reached for final hearing, an Advocate from the Legal Aid Committee was provided to represent the petitioner since she was not in a position to engage

Click Here to Read the rest of this document