IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Pankaj Jain, J.
Jaspal Singh @ Billu – Appellant
Versus
State Of Punjab – Respondent
CRM-M-36687-2022
Decided On : 03-10-2023
NDPS Act - Regular Bail - Section 15 - Section 37 - Section 8(c) - Section 21(c) - Section 29 - Section 36 - Section 37(1)(b)(ii) - Right to Speedy Trial
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C. seeking regular bail in a case registered for the offence punishable under Section 15 of the NDPS Act, 1985. The petitioner was one of the two passengers in a truck where 56 kg of poppy husk was recovered. The petitioner had been in custody for over 01 year, 08 months and 11 days, and no witness had been examined till date.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prolonged incarceration militates against the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. The court considered the precedents where the Supreme Court granted bail based on the length of custody and the delay in trial. The court allowed the petition and ordered the petitioner's release on bail with specific conditions.
Issues: The issues involved the grant of regular bail under the NDPS Act, considering the length of custody and delay in trial, and balancing the right to speedy trial with the rigors of Section 37 of the Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the interpretation of Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act, the right to speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution, and the need to achieve a balance between the two. The court also considered the provisions of Section 36 recognizing the need for speedy trial and the precedents where the Supreme Court granted bail based on prolonged incarceration and delay in trial.
Final Decision: The court allowed the petition and ordered the petitioner's release on bail, imposing specific conditions to ensure the petitioner's compliance and appearance during the trial.
JUDGMENT
Pankaj Jain, J. - Present petition has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR No.9 dated 20.01.2022, registered for the offence punishable under Section 15 of the NDPS Act, 1985 at Police Station Moonak, District Sangrur.
2. Petitioner is stated to be one of the two passengers in truck bearing No. PB-11CV-3397, when the contraband i.e. 56 kg of poppy husk was recovered from 04 plastic bags from the cabin of the truck.
3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has suffered incarceration of more than 01 year, 08 months and 11 days and is a first time offender with no criminal antecedents. Charges were framed way back on 28.07.2022 and till date no witness has been examined. The aforesaid assertions made by counsel for the petitioner are not disputed by counsel representing the State.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon order passed by Apex Court in the case of Rabi Prakash Vs. The State of Odisha passed in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 4169 of 2023 decided on 13.07.2023 wherein it has been 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. Earlier to Rabi Prakash's case (supra) also Apex Court has consistently held that the prolonged incarceration has to be considered dehors bar contained under Section 37 of the NDPS Act. The Supreme Court in order dated 22.08.2022 passed by the Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.5530-2022 titled as "Mohammad Salman Hanif Shaikh Vs. The State of Gujarat, had held as under:-
"We are inclined to release the petitioner on bail only on the ground that he has spent about two years in custody and conclusion of trial will take some time.
Consequently, without expressing any views on the merits of the case and taking into consideration the custody period of the petitioner, this special leave petition is accepted and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail subject to his furnishing the bail bonds to the satisfaction of the Special Judge/ concerned Trial Court.
The special leave petition is, accordingly, disposed of in the above terms.
Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of."
6. The above-said case was also a case under the NDPS Act, 1985 and the FIR had been registered under Sections 8(c), 21(c) and 29 of the said Act. The case of the prosecution therein was that the recovery from the said petitioner (therein) was of commercial quantity. The Supreme Court had observed that the concession of bail was granted to the petitioner (therein) only on the ground that he had spent about two years in custody and the conclusion of trial will take some time.
7. Supreme Court in order dated 07.02.2020 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No.245/2020 titled as "Chitta Biswas Alias Subhas vs. The State of West Bengal" was pleased to grant concession of bail to the petitioner (therein) in a case where the custody was of 1 year and 7 months approximately. The relevant portion of the said order dated 07.02.2020 is as under: -
"Leave granted.
This appeal arises out of the final Order dated 30.7.2010 passed by the High Court of Calcutta in CRM No.6787 of 2019.
The instant matter arises out of application preferred by the appellant under Section 439 Cr.P.C. seeking bail in connection with Crim
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the right to speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution can override the statutory embargo created under Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the ND....
Prolonged incarceration can justify bail despite statutory restrictions, emphasizing the fundamental right to liberty.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the recognition of the right to speedy trial under Section 36 of the NDPS Act and the balance between this right and the rigors of Section 37 in gr....
Grant of regular bail based on the length of custody, completion of investigation, and the likelihood of trial conclusion, in consideration of the right to speedy trial under Article 21 of the Consti....
The central legal point established in the judgment is the consideration of custody period, completion of investigation, and the likelihood of trial conclusion, along with the application of the righ....
Prolonged incarceration and delays in trial can override the statutory restrictions on bail under the NDPS Act, ensuring compliance with the right to a speedy trial.
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.