Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(P&H) 905

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
VIKAS BAHL, J.
Sher Singh – Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana – Respondent
CRM-M NO. 29921 of 2024
Decided On : 05-07-2024

Advocates Appeared:
Mr. Sandeep Saini, Advocate; For the Petitioner
Mr. Samarth Sagar, Addl.A.G. Haryana (through V.C.).

Prolonged custody and delayed trial violate the constitutional right to a speedy trial, allowing for a second bail application under the NDPS Act.

Headnote:(A) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Sections 21, 22, and 37 - Bail application - Petitioner has been in custody for over 4 years with trial not concluded - Previous bail applications dismissed on merits - Right to speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution - Petitioner entitled to file a second bail application due to delayed trial. (Paras 2, 12, 14)

(B) Constitutional Law - Article 21 - Speedy trial is a constitutional right - Delay in trial justifies the filing of a second bail application. (Paras 6, 12)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner has been in custody since 21.05.2020, with the trial not concluded and three witnesses yet to be examined. The first and second bail applications were dismissed on merits.

Findings of Court:
The petitioner is entitled to bail due to prolonged custody and delayed trial, with conditions imposed to ensure compliance.

Issues: The main issues were the maintainability of the second bail application and the right to a speedy trial.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the petitioner’s prolonged custody and the delay in trial violated his constitutional right under Article 21, justifying the grant of bail.

Result: Petition allowed, and the petitioner is granted bail subject to conditions.

JUDGMENT

Vikas Bahl, J. (Oral)

This is the 4th petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in FIR no.64 dated 21.05.2020 registered under Sections 21/22/296185 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as "NDPS Act") at Police Station Panjokhra, District Ambala, Haryana.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has been in custody since 21.05.2020 (more than 4 years and 1 month). It is submitted that the last bail application of the petitioner was withdrawn on 17.11.2023 and since then sufficient time has already elapsed and yet the trial has not concluded. It is further submitted that recovery has already been effected from the petitioner and the petitioner is not involved in any other case. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in case titled as Parvinder Singh v. State of Punjab, reported as 2003(12) SCC 615, in support of his argument with regard to maintainability of the second regular bail application after the dismissal of the first. He has further relied upon the judgment passed by the Rajasthan High Court (Jaipur Bench) (Full Bench) in case titled as Ganesh Raj v. State of Rajasthan and others reported as 2005(3) RCR (Criminal) 30, to contend that a speedy trial is a constitutional right of the accused provided to him under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and in case, the first regular bail application is dismissed on merits and trial is being delayed then, the petitioner would have the right to file a second bail application on account of delayed trial. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon an order dated 12.01.2022 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in CRM-3773-2019 in CRA-D-198-DB-2017 titled as Bhupender Singh v. Narcotic Control Bureau, order dated 22.08.2022 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.5530-2022 titled as "Mohammad Salman Hanif Shaikh v. The State of Gujarat, order dated 07.02.2020 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No.245/2020 titled as "Chitta Biswas Alias Subhas v. The State of West Bengal", order dated 05.08.2022 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No.1169 of 2022 titled as "Gopal Krishna Patra @ Gopalrusma v. Union of India,", order dated 01.08.2022 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.5769/2022 titled as "Nitish Adhikary @ Bapan v. The State of West Bengal", in support of his arguments that on the basis of long custody alone, the petitioner deserves the concession of regular bail.

3. Learned State counsel, on the other hand, has opposed the present petition for regular bail and has submitted that the recovery effected from the petitioner falls within commercial quantity and thus, the bar under Section 37 of the NDPS Act would apply. It is submitted that the first bail application of the petitioner as well as second bail application of the petitioner were dismissed on merits vide orders dated 14.01.2021 and 27.05.2022 and thus, the present petition for regular bail is not maintainable. Other facts have, however, not been disputed.

4. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and has perused the paper book.

5. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Parvinder Singh's case (Supra) has held as under:-

The bail application has not been examined on merits and has been dismissed holding that it is not maintainable, as against an earlier order of the High Court rejecting bail, a special leave petition was filed before this Court which was dismissed as withdrawn. The second ground stated in the impugned order is that the bail application has been rejected on three earlier occasions. The fact that earlier bail application was rejected and the special