Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
SANDEEP SHARMA, J.
Ses Ram - Appellant
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh - Respondent
Cr. MP (M) No. 2 of 2025
Decided On : 24-02-2025
(A) NDPS Act, 1985 - Sections 20 and 25 - Bail application - Petitioner, arrested for possession of commercial quantity of contraband, seeks bail citing inordinate delay in trial - Court emphasizes the right to speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution - Despite gravity of the offense, the petitioner has been in custody for over two years with only seven out of sixteen witnesses examined - Court finds that prolonged incarceration amounts to pre-trial conviction, violating fundamental rights - Bail granted with conditions. (Paras 4, 6, 10, 12, 14, 16)
(B) Right to Speedy Trial - The right to a speedy trial is fundamental and must be upheld irrespective of the nature of the crime - Courts must balance the gravity of the offense with the accused's right to liberty and fair trial. (Paras 10, 12, 14)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner has been in custody since 01.05.2023 for allegedly possessing 1.985 kilograms of Charas. The trial has been delayed, with only seven witnesses examined out of sixteen, and the next hearing set for 19.03.2025.
Findings of Court:
The court acknowledges the delay in trial and the petitioner’s prolonged incarceration, which constitutes a violation of Article 21. The court emphasizes that bail should not be withheld as punishment.
Issues: The main issues addressed include the right to a speedy trial and the implications of prolonged detention on the accused's fundamental rights.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the right to a speedy trial is paramount, and prolonged detention without trial is a violation of fundamental rights. The court can grant bail even in serious offenses if the trial is unduly delayed.
Result: Petition allowed; bail granted subject to conditions.
JUDGMENT :
Sandeep Sharma, J.
1. Bail petitioner, namely Ses Ram, who is behind bars since 01.05.2023, has approached this Court in the instant proceedings filed under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023, for grant of regular bail in Case FIR No. 76 of 2023, dated 01.05.2023, under Sections 20 and 25 of NDPS Act, registered at Police Station Bhunter, District Kullu, Himachal Pradesh.
2. Respondent/State has filed status report and ASI Bal Raj, I.O. Police Station Bhunter, District Kullu, Himachal Pradesh, has come present along with record. Record perused and returned.
3. Close scrutiny of status report/record reveals that on 01.05.2023 at 7:15 am, SIU/Cyber Cell, Kullu, intercepted vehicle bearing No.HP-66-6649, being driven by present bail petitioner for checking. Since occupant of the car got perplexed and started making excuses, Police deemed it necessary to cause search of vehicle as well as occupant of the car and after having associated independent witnesses, it allegedly searched the vehicle as well as occupant of the car and recovered 1.985 kilograms of Charas. Since no plausible explanation ever came to be rendered on record qua possession of aforesaid commercial quantity of contraband, Police after having completed necessary codal formalities registered FIR against the petitioner and arrested him on 01.05.2023 and since then, he is behind bars. Since Challan stands filed in the competent Court of law and nothing remains to be recovered from the bail petitioner, coupled with the fact that despite there being directions issued by this Court vide order dated 14.10.2024, passed in Cr.MP(M) No.2007 of 2024, Court below has not been able to conclude the trial in a time bound manner, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings for grant of regular bail on the ground of inordinate delay in conclusion of trial.
4. Mr. Yadvinder Gupta, learned counsel representing the petitioner states that petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and as such, his incarceration in jail for an indefinite period during trial is violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. He states that more than two years have passed, but till date, prosecution has been able to examine only seven prosecution witnesses out of sixteen and for recording the statement of remaining prosecution witnesses, trial Court has fixed the matter in the month of 19.03.2025. While referring to the judgment passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in case titled as Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another, Criminal Appeal No. 2787 of 2024 decided on 03.07.2024, Mr. Yadvinder Gupta, learned counsel representing the petitioner states that speedy trial has been held to be right of an accused and infringement of the same has been held to be violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. In the aforesaid judgment, Hon’ble Apex Court has categorically held that prosecution agency should not oppose the plea for bail on the ground that serious crime has been committed, especially when delay in conclusion of the trial is not at the behest of accused, rather is attributable to the prosecution.
5. Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General, while fairly admitting factum with regard to filing of Challan in the competent Court of law, contends that though nothing remains to be recovered from the bail petitioner, but keeping in view the gravity of the offence alleged to have been committed by him, he does not deserve any leniency and prayer made on his behalf for grant of bail deserves outright rejection. Mr. Panwar further states that since trial has commenced and seven prosecution witnesses already stand examined, prayer made on behalf of the petitioner for grant of bail on the ground of inordinate delay in conclusion of trial is not maintainable.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record, this Court is not persuaded to agree with Mr. Yadvinder Gupta, learned counsel representing th
The right to a speedy trial is fundamental under Article 21, and prolonged detention without trial violates this right, warranting bail even in serious offenses.
An accused's right to a speedy trial under Article 21 mandates that excessive delays in trial should not negate the possibility of bail under serious charges.
The right to a speedy trial is a constitutional guarantee, and prolonged detention without trial constitutes a violation of Article 21, warranting bail even in cases involving commercial quantities o....
The right to a speedy trial is a fundamental right under Article 21, and delays in trial can justify bail, even in serious offenses involving commercial quantities of narcotics.
Non-disclosure of arrest grounds violates Article 22(1), vitiating arrest and warranting bail; prolonged two-year pre-trial detention due to trial delays in NDPS commercial quantity case violates Art....
The denial of bail based solely on the nature of the crime violates the right to a speedy trial under Article 21, especially in cases with prolonged detention awaiting trial.
In NDPS commercial quantity cases, prolonged incarceration over two years due to inordinate trial delay violates Article 21 speedy trial right; bail grantable despite Section 37 if guilt unproven and....
The right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution is fundamental; prolonged detention without trial justifies bail, regardless of the seriousness of the charges.
Prolonged pre-trial detention over two years due to inordinate trial delay violates Article 21 speedy trial right, warranting bail despite serious narcotics offence gravity.
The right to a speedy trial is a fundamental right; bail may be granted in narcotics cases if incarceration time exceeds reasonable limits without trial completion.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
