IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Anish Dayal, J.
Peter Graham Wolledge - Petitioner
Versus
Narcotic Control Bureau - Respondent
Bail Appln. 1975 Of 2022
Decided On : 23-01-2023
Constitution of India, 1949 – Article 21, 32 – Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – Protection of Life and personal liberty – Remedies for enfrocment of rights conferres by this Part – Case of prosecution pursuant to secret information received from IGI Airport one lady was opened at request of NCB was detained at departure lounge while she was going from Delhi to Bangkok – Baggage which was checked opened and one bag was found having suspicious material which later gave positive results for charas and hashish total weight of which came out of which samples were taken – Held, Case of prosecution that baggage was checked in by co-accused at behest of petitioner sentence if convicted petitioner would be for a period extending from a adverting to merits of matter evident that petitioner has spent more than half period of minimum – Trial is expected to be prolonged and will not conclude in near future principles enunciated by Hon’ble Supreme Court would directly apply to facts of this case and would entitle petitioner to bail subject to certain conditions – Petition is disposed of.
JUDGMENT :
1. This petition has been filed seeking regular bail in Sessions Case No. SC/138/2017, NCB Case No. VIII/18/DZU/2016 under section 20(b)(ii)(C)/23/29 NDPS Act. The petitioner has been in custody since 6th November, 2016 and has been in incarceration for a period of about 6 years 2 months.
2. As per the case of the prosecution, on 4th November, 2016, pursuant to secret information received from IGI Airport, one lady namely Nympha De Jesus, in whose name LOC was opened at the request of NCB, was detained at the departure lounge while she was going from Delhi to Bangkok. The baggage which was checked in her name was opened and one bag was found having suspicious material which later gave positive results for charas and hashish, the total weight of which came out to be 2.7 kg out of which samples were taken. Thereafter, the statement of Nympha was recorded under section 67 NDPS Act wherein she stated that the petitioner herein was her boyfriend and they were living together in Manali and they had come from Manali to New Delhi to go to Bangkok and that the petitioner had booked his luggage on her ticket after getting the boarding pass. Based on her interrogation, the NCB got the petitioner deported from Bangkok to IGI Airport Delhi and he was arrested on 6th November, 2016. Later on 25th March, 2021, the Ld. Trial Court framed charges under the NDPS Act against the petitioner and the co-accused Nympha to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is about 66 years of age and has no previous involvement. Even as per the case of the prosecution, based on the said charge against the petitioner, the minimum imprisonment awarded would be 10 years as per the NDPS Act. However, trial has only recently commenced after 6 years of incarceration and 20 prosecution witnesses are to be examined out of which only 2 witnesses have been examined so far and PW-3 is under examination. Trial, therefore being at initial stage and not likely to be concluded in near future, continued incarceration violates the petitioner’s fundamental right provided under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It is further contended that the delay in trial is not attributable to the petitioner. It is pointed out that as per order dated 14th December, 2017 of the Ld. Trial Court, it was clear that the petitioner had conceded for settlement of charge against him, however, the matter was adjourned as the SPP of the NCB was busy and could not reply. Further, the petitioner is a British National of Indian origin and is an OIC card holder but has been living in India for a long time and there are no chances of his absconding since his passport is already lying seized with the NCB and even otherwise he has roots in India and is well respected.
4. The critical issue which has been contended by the petitioner is that there was no recovery made from the petitioner but from the co-accused Nympha and only upon her disclosure, was he apprehended.
5. As per the learned counsel for the NCB, the contraband is commercial quantity and was found concealed in the baggage of Ms. Nympha in the personal belongings of the petitioner. As regards the delay in trial, the learned counsel for the NCB has placed the order sheets showing that the trial was delayed due to Covid pandemic and other reasons beyond control. It is further contended that detention simpliciter of more than 5 years cannot give the mechanical right to the petitioner for seeking bail specially when there is a statutory embargo under the NDPS Act. The learned counsel for the NCB has relied upon decisions of the High Court of Calcutta in Ashok Shil @ Arun v. State of West Bengal, CRM (NDPS) No. 248 of 2022 and Sapan Mandal v. Narcotics Control Bureau, CRM No. 7715 of 2021 in support of their submissions.
6. Perusal of the chart of the Ld. Trial Court proceedings filed by the NCB would show that only on 6-7 occasions in about 59 hearings wh
Thana Singh v. Central Bureau of Narcotics
Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee (Representing Undertrial Prisoners) v. Union of India
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the delay in trial and non-compliance of certain provisions of the NDPS Act can violate the constitutional rights of the accused under Article....
Bail can be granted to undertrials in NDPS cases based on prolonged incarceration and delay in trial, in accordance with the principles established in the Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee case and s....
The court emphasized that prolonged detention without trial violates the accused's rights under Article 21, allowing bail if the accused has served over half of the maximum sentence under the NDPS Ac....
Prolonged pre-trial detention infringes on the right to personal liberty under Article 21, necessitating bail when an accused has languished in custody beyond half the maximum sentence duration.
The Court established that an undertrial jailed for more than half the minimum sentence is eligible for bail due to delayed trial, emphasizing the right to personal liberty under Article 21.
The right to speedy trial and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution must be upheld, and inordinate delay in trial can warrant the release of undertrial prisoners, as per the Supreme C....
Bail – Section 436-A of Cr.P.C. does not exclude offences under NDPS Act – Deprivation of personal liberty without ensuring speedy trial is not consistent with Article 21.
The right to a speedy trial is fundamental, and prolonged detention without trial infringes upon this right, warranting bail.
In NDPS commercial quantity cases, prolonged incarceration over two years due to inordinate trial delay violates Article 21 speedy trial right; bail grantable despite Section 37 if guilt unproven and....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.