Prolonged judicial custody and trial delays can justify bail under the NDPS Act, even for serious offences, if the accused are not responsible for the delays.

Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 439 - Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Sections 8/22, 25 and 29 - Bail application - Petitioners arrested in connection with FIR for NDPS Act offences claimed false implication and lengthy judicial custody - Co-accused granted bail - Delay in trial with only 1 witness examined out of 19 cited - Bail applications allowed with conditions. (Paras 1, 4, 8, 9)

(B) Bail - Considerations - Lengthy incarceration and delay in trial can warrant bail, even in serious offences under NDPS Act, provided the petitioners are not responsible for the delay. (Paras 4, 8)

Facts of the case:
The petitioners were arrested for alleged possession of psychotropic substances, with co-accused already granted bail. They have been in custody for over 3 years with minimal progress in the trial.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the lengthy detention and lack of trial progress justified granting bail, emphasizing that the petitioners are not to blame for the delays.

Issues: The main issues included the justification for granting bail despite serious charges and the impact of trial delays on the petitioners' rights.

Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that the prolonged judicial custody and minimal examination of witnesses necessitated bail, indicating that serious charges do not preclude bail under such circumstances.

Result: Bail applications allowed.

Order :

1. These applications for bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. have been filed by the petitioners who have been arrested in connection with FIR No.83/2021 registered at Police Station Raisinghnagar, District Sri Ganganagar, for offences under Sections 8/22, 25 and 29 of the NDPS Act.

2. Learned counsel submitted that as per the prosecution, during routine nakabandi, on 03.04.2021, a team of Police Station Raisinghnagar signaled a Motorcycle having registration No.RJ-13- DS-9436 to stop on which the co-accused- Vikram Kumar was a pillion rider and was carrying a sack on his shoulder. Being suspicious of his activities, a search of the said sack was being made by the police team and they recovered psychotropic substance (25000 tablets of Tramadol) weighing 9.400 Kgs packed in total 100 boxes from the conscious possession of the co- accused- Vikram Kumar. As per the prosecution, the petitioner Vinod Kumar fled away from the scene.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in this case. Learned counsel submitted that co-accused Vikram Kumar (S.B. Cr. Misc. Bail Application No.11847/2024) from whose conscious possession, the psychotropic substance (Tramadol) was allegedly recovered has already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 08.01.2025.

4. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioners are in judicial custody since 27.11.2021 and 30.11.2021 respectively. They further submitted that out of the total 19 cited prosecution witnesses, till date only 1 prosecution witness has been examined before competent Criminal Court. They further submitted that the delay in trial is not at all attributable to the petitioners. They submitted that the petitioners are in judicial custody since last more than 3 years 3 months and looking to the pace at which trial is being conducted against the present petitioners, the same is not likely to be concluded in near future.

5. In support of their contention, learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on the cases of Rabi Prakash Vs. State of Orisa (Leave to Appeal (Criminal) No.4169/2023 and Mohd Muslim @ Hussain Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) in Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No(s).915 of 2023 On these grounds, they implored the Court to enlarge the petitioners on bail.

6. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the bail applications and submitted that petitioners are facing trial for the offence under the NDPS Act and, therefore, the present bail applications deserve to be rejected straightway. Learned Public Prosecutor, however, was not in position to refute the fact that in last more than 3 years 3 months, out of total 19 cited prosecution witnesses, only 1 witness has been examined till date.

7. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record.

8. Having considered the rival submissions, facts and circumstances of the case and considering the fact that the petitioners have suffered incarceration for last more than 3 years 3 months and out of total 19 cited prosecution witnesses, only 1 witness has been examined till date, without expressing any opinion on merits/demerits of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the bail applications filed by the petitioners deserve to be accepted.

9. Accordingly, these bail applications under Section 439 Cr.P.C.are allowed and it is ordered that the accused-petitioners- (1) Mahesh Kumar @ Ramesh Kumar S/o Hansraj and (2) Vinod Kumar S/o Shri Chandu @ Ram Chander shall be enlarged on bail in connection with FIR No.83/2021 registered at Police Station Raisinghnagar, District Sri Ganganagar, provided each of them furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with two sureties of Rs.50,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Judge for their appearance before the court concerned on all the dates of hearing as and when called upon to so.

10. In case, the petitioners remain absent on any date

Click Here to Read the rest of this document