2022 Supreme(P&H) 1258

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Pankaj Jain, Ajay Tewari, JJ.
Bhupender Singh & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
Narcotic Control Bureau & Ors. – Respondents
CRM-3773-2019 IN CRA-D-198-DB-2017
Decided On : 12-01-2022

The stringent provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act must be applied in cases where the convict/accused is unable to bring his case within the parameters of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. However, in cases where the convict/accused is able to demonstrate that he has undergone a significant period of incarceration and that the appeal is not likely to be heard in the near future, the Court may consider suspending the sentence.

Headnote:

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana, in a comprehensive judgment, addressed the issue of suspension of sentence in cases under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act). The Court considered various judgments of the Supreme Court and other High Courts on the subject and laid down principles for the grant of bail and suspension of sentence in such cases.

Fact of the Case:

The case involved a bunch of petitions filed by various applicants-appellants, who were convicted under the NDPS Act and were seeking suspension of their sentences pending the disposal of their appeals.

Finding of the Court:

The Court held that the stringent provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, which restrict the grant of bail and suspension of sentence, must be applied in cases where the convict/accused is unable to bring his case within the parameters of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. However, in cases where the convict/accused is able to demonstrate that he has undergone a significant period of incarceration and that the appeal is not likely to be heard in the near future, the Court may consider suspending the sentence.

Issues: 1. Whether the stringent provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act should be applied in all cases, irrespective of the circumstances of the case? 2. Whether the Court has the power to suspend the sentence of a convict under the NDPS Act, even if the Public Prosecutor opposes the application? 3. What are the factors that the Court should consider while deciding whether to grant bail or suspend the sentence of a convict under the NDPS Act?

Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the stringent provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act must be applied in cases where the convict/accused is unable to bring his case within the parameters of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. However, in cases where the convict/accused is able to demonstrate that he has undergone a significant period of incarceration and that the appeal is not likely to be heard in the near future, the Court may consider suspending the sentence. The Court also held that it has the power to suspend the sentence of a convict under the NDPS Act, even if the Public Prosecutor opposes the application, if the convict/accused is able to demonstrate that he has undergone a significant period of incarceration and that the appeal is not likely to be heard in the near future.

Final Decision: The Court disposed of the petitions filed by the applicants-appellants by suspending the sentences of those who had undergone a significant period of incarceration and whose appeals were not likely to be heard in the near future. The Court also directed the State of Punjab to file a response on various issues related to the drug menace in the State, including whether the State has any road map in place to fight this menace, whether any scientific study has been conducted on the cause and effect of drug addiction in the State, and whether the State has mapped drug addiction and found the most affected areas/districts.