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 21, leading to the grant of bail.

JUDGMENT :

ANISH DAYAL, J.

1. By this petition, the petitioner is seeking regular bail in FIR No.39/2016 registered under Sections 20/29 NDPS Act (Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985) P.S. Special Cell (SB).

2. The facts, as per the FIR, are that on 25th June, 2016 a secret information was received that two persons viz., Babu Roy @ Chhotu and Jeewan Mondal (petitioner herein) have reached Delhi from Odisha in a white Maruti Car bearing West Bengal number alongwith a huge consignment of Ganja (a narcotics substance) and was to be delivered to Hafiz in the Yamuna Khadar of Jaitpur Delhi at about 8 AM. As per the complainant SI Ashok Kumar, the said information was reduced into writing and was conveyed to the DCP who gave directions to conduct the raid. Further, this information was lodged vide DD No. 13 dated 25th June, 2016 at 5:15 AM and a copy of the same was submitted before the Inspector-In-Charge in compliance of Section 42 NDPS Act. A raiding party was organized under the supervision of Inspector Kailash Singh Bisht and at about 7:00 AM they reached Pusta Road towards Jaitpur from Kalindi Kunj, Delhi where around 7.30 AM, one Maruti car i.e. Swift Dzire bearing registration number DL 3CCC 7032 came from Kalindi Kunj side and then moved towards Yamuna Khadar behind a Vento Car. Both the cars stopped and one person alighted from the Vento car and two from the Swift Dzire car. The secret informer identified both the persons from the Swift Dzire as Babu Roy and Jeewan Mondal while the one from Vento Car as Hafiz. The raiding team cordoned the three persons resulting in a scuffle and subsequently, all three men were apprehended and interrogated. Notices under Section 50 NDPS Act were prepared in Hindi and served upon the three accused persons. Upon search of Mohd. Hafiz a grey colour polythene bag was seized containing 16 kg of ganja from which sample was taken. Search of Babu Rao @ Chhotu also revealed one grey colour polythene bag containing ganja weighing 16 kg from which sample was taken. Search of Jeevan Mondal also revealed one grey colour polythene bag containing ganja weighing 16 kg from which sample was taken. Further, search of the Vento car belonging to Hafiz led to the discovery of 3 more packets of 16 kg each of ganja. A search of Swift Dzire belonging to Babu Rao, 4 grey colour polythene bags containing ganja weighing 16 kg each were recovered. The accused were arrested and the petitioner is in custody since 25th June, 2016. Charge sheet was filed on 19th December, 2016 citing as many as 34 witnesses whereafter a supplementary charge sheet was filed citing additional 4 witnesses.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner is in custody for the last more than 5 ½ years and so far only 14 witnesses have been examined while 24 witnesses are left to be examined. It is further contended that 16 kg of ganja was recovered from the petitioner which, as per the NDPS Act, is 4 kg less than “commercial quantity”. He further contended that there was no compliance of Section 50 of the NDPS Act in the present case but essentially stressed that the constitutional rights of the petitioner under Article 21 which guarantees speedy trial were being violated by this delayed trial since the petitioner has already undergone more than 5 ½ years of incarceration, which was more than half of the sentence that may be visited on the petitioner assuming that he would be convicted.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also supplied copies of order-sheets of the learned Trial Court starting from 9th October 2018 to 13th April 2022 which showed that out of 32 hearing dates which were scheduled before the learned Trial Court, on at least 11 dates the prosecution had sought adjournment, witnesses had been fully or partially examined on 13 dates and on about 6 hearings, the matter was listed for hearing through video conferencing but due to administrative instructions, the matter could not be proceeded.