Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(P&H) 1582

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Deepak Gupta, J.
Sagar – Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana – Respondent
CRM-M No. 34952 of 2023
Decided On : 06-11-2023

Advocates appeared:
For the Parties : Mr. Siddarth, Mr. Poonam Rani, Mr. Parveen Kumar Aggarwal

The right to a speedy trial under Article 21 can outweigh the rigour of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, warranting bail even in cases involving commercial quantities of contraband.

Headnote:(A) Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Sections 22(c), 42 and 50 - Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 - Sections 18A and 18(c) - Petition for regular bail in case FIR No.286 under NDPS Act - Petitioner in custody for over 2 years and 4 months with no other NDPS cases - Court considers previous Supreme Court decisions granting bail under similar circumstances despite commercial quantity of contraband - Balancing right to speedy trial with statutory provisions. (Paras 1, 3, 8, 9)

(B) Right to speedy trial - Fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India - Must be balanced against the rigour of Section 37 of the NDPS Act. (Paras 9, 10)

Facts of the case:
Petitioner seeks bail after being in custody for over 2 years and 4 months for allegedly selling narcotics injections, with prior bail petitions dismissed as withdrawn.

Findings of Court:
The petitioner is granted regular bail considering the lengthy custody period and absence of prior NDPS cases.

Issues: The main issues involved the custody length and its impact on the right to bail despite the commercial nature of the contraband.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the right to speedy trial must be considered alongside the statutory requirements of the NDPS Act, leading to the conclusion that bail should be granted.

Result: Petition allowed.

Judgment

Mr. Deepak Gupta, J.:- By way of this petition filed under Section 439 CrPC, petitioner prays for grant of regular bail in case FIR No.286 dated 01.07.2021 registered at Police Station Dabua, Faridabad under Sections 22 (c) (Act N: 61 of 1985) of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 [for short ‘the NDPS Act’] and Sections 18A and 18(c) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 [for short ‘the Drugs Act’].

2. This is stated to be fifth regular bail. The earlier petitions bearing CRM-M-46554-2021, CRM-M-268-2022, CRM-M-19038-2022 and CRM-M-19454-2023 were dismissed as withdrawn.

3. As per the allegations, secret information was received against the petitioner on 01.07.2021 to the effect that he was involved in selling of narcotics injections. Compliance of Section 42 of the NDPS Act was made. Naka was laid. Petitioner was apprehended. After making compliance of Section 50 of the NDPS Act, search was conducted in the presence of Gazetted officer, which resulted into recovery of 112 injections of Buprenorphine Leegesic of 2 ml. each (total 224 ml.) and 361 injections of Avil. The same were taken into possession after completing necessary formalities. FIR was registered under Section 22(c) of the NDPS Act and Sections 18A and 18(c) of the Drugs.

4. It is contended by ld. counsel that petitioner has been falsely implicated, having no concern with the alleged recovery; that he is in custody for the last more than 2 years and 4 months; that trial may take time to conclude; that witnesses cited by the prosecution are official and so, there is no possibility of tampering with the evidence and so, in all the circumstances, petitioner be allowed regular bail.

5. Ld. State counsel opposed the bail petition by pointing out towards the commercial category of the contraband as recovered from the petitioner. Ld. State counsel further submits that out of 14 witnesses cited by the prosecution, 6 have already been examined and that case is now fixed for 23.01.2024 for examining the remaining witnesses. However, by placing on record the custody certificate, it is not disputed by ld. State counsel that petitioner is in custody for the last more than 2 years and 4 months. Prayer is made for rejecting the bail petition.

6. I have considered submissions of both the sides and have appraised the record.

7. No doubt that alleged recovery of contraband from the petitioner is of commercial category, but at the same time, Court cannot ignore the custody period of the petitioner, which is more than 2 years and 4 months. The custody certificate further reveals that petitioner is not involved in any other case pertaining to the NDPS Act.

8. In a decision rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mohammad Salman Hanif Shaikh Vs. The State of Gujarat, Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.5530 of 2022, decided on 22.08.2022, appellant had spent about 2 years in custody and trial was likely to take time. The case of the prosecution was that recovery of commercial quantity of contraband was effected from the appellant. However, considering the custody period, Hon’ble Supreme Court was pleased to grant regular bail.

In Chitta Biswas @ Subhas Vs. The State of West Bengal, Criminal Appeal No.245/2020, decided on 07.02.2020, Hon’ble Supreme Court was pleased to grant concession of bail to the appellant in a case where the custody period was 1 year and 7 months approximately despite the fact that recovery was of commercial quantity.

In yet another case titled Gopal Krishna Patra @ Gopalrusma Vs. Union of India, Criminal Appeal No.1169 of 2022, decided on 05.08.2022, the custody period of the appellant therein was approximately 2 years and 1 month. Considering the length of custody, concession of bail was granted.

In Nitish Adhikary @ Bapan Vs. The State of West Bengal, Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.5649/2022, decided on 01.08.2022, the appellant therein was in custody for the last 1 year and 7 months in a case involving recovery of commercial ca

Click Here to Read the rest of this document