Back
UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT
Ravindra Maithani, J.
Mohd. Shadab – Applicant
versus
Narcotics Control Bureau – Respondent
Fourth Bail Application No.22 of 2024
Decided on 1.4.2025
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – Section 37 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 439 [Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – Section 483] – Bail application – It is a case pertaining to recovery of narcotic substances in commercial quantity and in such cases, Section 37 of the Act makes specific provisions – Bail in such cases may not be granted unless Court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that accused is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail – But, denial of bail does not give unfettered liberty to prosecution to keep a person in custody without conducting trial – Applicant is in custody for more than one year – In between, for more than six months, no progress was made in the case – Trial has yet not concluded – It commands Court to release applicant on bail – Applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail – Bail granted. (Paras 6, 7, 8 and 9)
Result: Bail Application allowed.
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
Ravindra Maithani, J.—Applicant Mohd. Shadab is in judicial custody in NCB Case Crime No. 01 of 2023, under Section 8/22C and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (“the Act”), Police NCB, Sub Zone Dehradun, District Dehradun. He has sought his release on bail.
2. This is fourth bail application of the applicant. His first, second and third bail applications have been dismissed on 12.04.2023, 09.05.2024 and 07.08.2024, respectively.
3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that in the instant matter, the applicant is in custody since the date of his arrest on 19.01.2023; the charge sheet was filed on 12.07.2023; the charge was framed on 04.11.2023; PW 4 was examined on 09.07.2024, but thereafter nothing happened till 21.02.2025, when his cross-examination was done. Thereafter, nothing has happened.
5. Learned counsel for the Narcotics Control Bureau would submit that Narcotics Control Bureau has not committed any default in the proceedings of trial; in one year four witnesses have been examined; in so far as PW 4 is concerned, delay occurred only because he was appearing in another case in Bareilly court in similar nature of case.
6. It is a case pertaining to recovery of narcotic substances in commercial quantity and in such cases, Section 37 of the Act makes specific provisions. Bail in such cases may not be granted, unless the Court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. But, denial of bail does not give unfettered liberty to the prosecution to keep a person in custody without conducting a trial.
7. The applicant is in custody for more than one year. In between, for more than six months, no progress was made in the case. The trial has yet not concluded. It commands the Court to release the applicant on bail.
8. Having considered the entirety of facts, this Court is of the view that the applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail.
9. The bail application is allowed.
10. Let the applicant be released on bail, on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties, each of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the Court concerned.
Bail application – Denial of bail does not give unfettered liberty to prosecution to keep a person in custody without conducting trial.
Prolonged detention without trial and lack of witness examination can justify the granting of bail, even in cases involving serious charges under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act.
The court established that the right to a timely trial is fundamental, and prolonged detention without trial can warrant the granting of bail, even in serious narcotic cases under Section 37 of the A....
Prolonged incarceration does not justify bail under stringent NDPS Act provisions if the statutory conditions are unmet.
The significant delay in trial proceedings justifies the granting of bail despite statutory restrictions, prioritizing the right to personal liberty.
The court established that prolonged custody without trial and lack of witness examination can warrant the granting of bail, even in cases involving serious charges under the NDPS Act.
Prolonged incarceration and delays in trial can justify bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C., emphasizing the right to a speedy trial under Article 21.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
