HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
Vinit Kumar Mathur, J.
Sunil – Appellant
Versus
State – Respondent
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 4th Bail Application No. 4024/2022
Decided On : 27-04-2022
BAIL - NDPS Act - Section 8/15 - 439 Cr.P.C. - 3, 43-D(5) of UAPA - Summary of the acts and sections referenced and discussed by the court: The court discussed Section 8/15 of the NDPS Act and Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. The court also referred to Section 43-D(5) of the UAPA and the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v.. K.A. Najeeb (2021 (3) SCC 713) regarding the ability of the constitutional courts to grant bail on grounds of violation of Part-III of the Constitution and the constitutional right to speedy trial.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a bail application citing delay in trial proceedings and non-cooperation of police officials in appearing before the trial court for their examination. The petitioner had already suffered incarceration for more than four and a half years.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the non-appearance of police officials before the trial court, despite being summoned, was unjustified, and the pandemic was not a reasonable excuse for their non-appearance. The court also considered the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v.. K.A. Najeeb regarding the constitutional right to speedy trial and granted bail to the petitioner.
Issues: Delay in trial proceedings, non-cooperation of police officials, and the petitioner's entitlement to bail after suffering incarceration for more than four and a half years.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the non-appearance of police officials before the trial court, especially during the pandemic, was unjustified and granted bail to the petitioner based on the constitutional right to speedy trial.
Final Decision: The 4th bail application filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. was allowed, and the petitioner was directed to be released on bail in connection with the case. The court also directed the Director General of Police, State of Rajasthan, Jaipur to take urgent steps to ensure the appearance of police officials before the trial court for speedy trial of cases.
JUDGMENT
Vinit Kumar Mathur, J. - The present fourth bail application has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. on behalf of the petitioner who is in custody in connection with F.I.R. No. 0109/2017, Police Station Gajner District Bikaner for the offence under Section 8/15 of NDPS Act.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Public Prosecutor and also perused the material available on record.
3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the third bail application of the petitioner was dismissed by this court vide order dated 19.08.2020. The present fourth bail application has been filed on the ground that despite repeated directions having been issued by this court, the trial is not being proceeded and concluded. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that on 18.01.2019, the learned trial court was directed to expedite the trial proceedings. After 18.01.2019, when the trial was being proceeded at a snail's pace, again on 19.08.2020, this court while rejecting third bail application of the petitioner, direction was issued that since the petitioner has faced incarceration for more than three and half years, the trial court was directed to call the witnesses and expedite the trial proceedings. The counsel further submits that after the directions having been issued by this court on two occasions, more than a period of one and a half year has passed, still the trial proceedings have not been concluded as out of total 14 witnesses, only 07 witnesses have been examined so far. Learned counsel has placed on record order sheets of the trial court to contend that a close reading of the same will show that the witnesses who are mostly police officials despite having been summoned by the trial court from time to time, failed to appear for tendering their evidence before the trial court. The counsel submits that the trial proceedings are not being concluded on account of failure of the witnesses in appearing before the trial court. The witnesses who are not appearing before the trial court are officials of the police department, therefore, the directions issued by this court for expediting the trial proceedings could not be complied with. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner has already suffered the incarceration for more than four and half years. The counsel for the petitioner relies upon a judgment of three Judges bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Union of India v.. K.A. Najeeb 2021 (3) SCC 713. Learned counsel further submits that casual approach of the police officials in not appearing before the trial court for their examination is hampering the trial proceedings resulting into delay in deciding the case of the petitioner for which he had to suffer the incarceration. The counsel relies upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Tapan Das v. Union of India decided on 07.10.2021 and order of coordinate bench of this court passed in S.B. Criminal Second Bail Application No. 2392/2019 Oma Ram @ Om Prakash v.. State decided on 06.05.2019 and the observations made by this court in S.B. Criminal Misc. 3rd Bail Application No. 15198/2021 Manjeet Singh v.. State of Rajasthan decided on 07.12.2021. Therefore, it is prayed that the petitioner may be enlarged on bail.
4. Learned Public Prosecutor has filed a reply to the present bail application. He submits that on account of pandemic of Covid-19 in the country, the witnesses who are police officials could not appear before the trial court for their examination. Learned Public Prosecutor is not in position to dispute the fact that the petitioner has suffered the incarceration for more than four and half years and the orders passed by this court for expediting the trial proceedings.
5. I have considered the submissions made at the bar and gone through the relevant documents of the case. The petitioner is facing the trial for an offence under NDPS Act and has suffered the incarceration for more than four and half years. I
The constitutional right to speedy trial and the ability of the constitutional courts to grant bail on grounds of violation of Part-III of the Constitution.
Prolonged incarceration and delay in trial proceedings can be grounds for granting bail, and non-appearance of police officials before the trial court, citing the pandemic as a reason, cannot be a re....
Prolonged incarceration and delay in trial proceedings can be grounds for granting bail, and non-appearance of essential witnesses before the trial court may not be a reasonable excuse.
The right to speedy trial and the interpretation of statutory restrictions on bail under the NDPS Act were central to the court's decision.
Prolonged detention without trial infringes the constitutional right to liberty and a speedy trial, necessitating bail for the accused.
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.
The court considered the prolonged custody of the petitioner and the exceptions within Section 37 of the NDPS Act to grant bail.
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.