IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
MANOJ KUMAR GARG, J.
Rawta Ram S/o Pappa Ram – Petitioner
Versus
Union of India, through NCB, Jodhpur – Respondent
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 14290 of 2023
Decided On : 07-02-2024
Bail Application - NDPS Act - 8/18, 25 & 29 - The court discussed the provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act and the conditions for granting bail under the Act. It also referred to the Supreme Court's interpretation of the statutory restrictions and the constitutional courts' ability to grant bail based on the violation of constitutional rights. The court considered the prolonged incarceration of the accused and allowed the bail application.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a second bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. after being arrested for offences under Sections 8/18, 25 & 29 of the NDPS Act. The trial had been pending for over four years, with only five out of twelve witnesses examined.
Finding of the Court:
The court allowed the second bail application considering the prolonged custody of the petitioner and the ongoing trial.
Issues: Prolonged custody, trial delay, and statutory restrictions on bail under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the exceptions within Section 37 of the NDPS Act and the constitutional courts' ability to grant bail based on the violation of constitutional rights.
Final Decision: The second bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. was allowed, and the accused-petitioner was ordered to be enlarged on bail.
ORDER :
1. This is the second bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. The petitioner has been arrested in connection with FIR No. 02/2020, Police Station NCB Jodhpur, District Jodhpur for the offence under Sections 8/18, 25 & 29 of NDPS Act.
2. The first bail application of the petitioner was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 07.03.2022 as not pressed.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and he has falsely been implicated in this case. Counsel submits that the trial is pending for last more than four years and till date, only five prosecution witnesses have been examined out of total 12 witnesses. Counsel submits that some witnesses did not turn up for their evidence despite issuance of summon.
4. In support of his contentions, learned counsel placed reliance on the recent order dated 13.07.2023 passed by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of Rabi Prakash vs. State of Odisha in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 4169/2023, wherein Hon’ble the Supreme Court held as under:
4. As regard to the twin conditions contained in Section 37 of the NDPS Act, learned counsel for the respondent-State has been duly heard. Thus, the 1st condition stands complied with. So far as the 2nd condition re: formation of opinion as to whether there are reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioner is not guilty, the same may not be formed at this stage when he has already spent more than three and a half years in custody. The prolonged incarceration, generally militates against the most precious fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution and in such a situation, the conditional liberty must override the statutory embargo created under Section 37(1)(b) (ii) of the NDPS Act.”
5. Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. K.A. Najeeb, (2021) 3 SCC 713, while dealing with the cases where fetters are placed on Court’s power to grant bail and the trial has not been completed within a reasonable time, observed as under:
6. A coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Umesh Vyas vs. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Criminal Misc. II Bail Application No. 14958/2022), vide order dated 17.03.2023, also observed as follows:
The court considered the prolonged custody of the petitioner and the exceptions within Section 37 of the NDPS Act to grant bail.
Prolonged incarceration can justify bail despite statutory restrictions under the NDPS Act, emphasizing the right to a speedy trial.
Prolonged incarceration can justify bail despite statutory restrictions under the NDPS Act, emphasizing the right to a speedy trial.
Prolonged incarceration exceeding three years justifies bail under NDPS Act despite statutory restrictions, emphasizing the right to a speedy trial.
Bail – Fifth bail application filed solely on the ground of custody period of accused and keeping in view fact that trial against him has not been completed till date, deserves to be accepted.
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 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 delay in trial and prolonged incarceration can warrant granting bail despite statutory restrictions under the NDPS Act.
The central legal point established in the judgment is that prolonged incarceration militates against the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution, and bail can be granted ba....
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.