“What procedure to be adopted by the learned Sessions courts for conducting trial of cases registered on the basis of complaints lodged by the Customs and Revenue Departments under NDPS Act i.e., cases instituted otherwise than on police report”.

2. The aforesaid legal issue cropped-up while hearing the instant bail application, filed under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 by one of the accused seeking regular bail in connection with Sessions (Special) Case No. 208(K) of 2004, pending before the learned Sessions Judge, Kamrup (M), Guwahati, arising out of DRI Case No. 1 of 2004 under Section 20 (b) (ii) (C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act, 1985 (in short ‘NDPS Act’). During the course of hearing the learned counsel for the accused pointed out that the accused is in judicial custody since last more than 5(five) years. When it came to light of the court that the case is pending for disposal since last one decade the court became inquisitive to ascertain as to what is the root cause for long period taken in the trial of NDPS cases. Hence, the aforesaid legal question was framed to decide and direct the trial courts to adopt such procedure which would provide speedy trial of the cases and promote the cause of justice.

3. Heard Smti SK Nargis, learned counsel for the accused. Also heard Shri D. Chakraborty, learned Standing counsel for the DRI. Keeping in mind the wide ramification of this judgment the State of Assam was also impleaded as a party, besides appointing Sri N. Dutta, learned Sr. counsel as Amicus Curiae to address the court only on the legal issue. The State was represented by Z. Kamar, learned Public Prosecutor, Assam and Shri K. Munir, learned Addl. PP.

4. Before embarking upon to answer the legal issue I would first dispose of the prayer for bail. According to the learned counsel for the accused the case is pending since last 10 (ten) years and, out of nine cited witnesses, evidence of only four witnesses have been completed so far. Besides this, the accused is in jail since last more than five years. Smti Nargis, the learned counsel for the accused further submitted that in another case under NDPS Act the High Court has very recently granted bail to the same accused and in other case under IPC also the accused is on regular bail. Besides this one more case was registered under NDPS Act in the State of West Bengal and in the said case the accused/petitioner has been acquitted.

5. In another Bail Application No. 386 of 2013 this court has observed that the restriction to release the accused on bail, who is booked under Section 19 or 24 or 27 A or for the offences involving commercial quantity cannot be converted into a case for preventive detention. In other words, the prosecution must come out with tangible evidence that the accused would in all probability repeat the offence, while on bail. In the case before me the learned counsel for the accused submitted that the witnesses so far examined by the prosecution have not whispered about the involvement of the present accused in the aforesaid offence. Besides this, the learned counsel for the accused relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee-Vs- Union of India; reported in (1994) 6 SCC 731 wherein the Apex Court gave certain directions for speedy trial of the narcotic cases. The guidelines with respect to releasing the accused persons on bail are reproduced below:

“15. But the main reason which motivated the Supreme Court Legal Aid Society to file this petition under Article 32 of the Constitution was the delay in the disposal of cases under the Act involving foreigners. The reliefs claimed included a direction to treat further detention of foreigners, who were languishing in jails as undertrials under the Act for a period exceeding two years, as void or in any case they be released on bail and it was further submitted by counsel that their cases be given priority ove

Click Here to Read the rest of this document