Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
RAVINDRA MAITHANI, J.
Shoaib and Another – Appellants
Versus
State of Uttarakhand - Respondent
First Bail Application No. 1639 of 2023
Decided on : 09-01-2024
BAIL - NARCOTIC DRUGS - The court emphasized the provisions of Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, which restricts bail in cases involving commercial quantities of narcotics. However, the court also highlighted the necessity for timely trial proceedings, noting the significant delay in the prosecution's case and the applicants' prolonged custody without a concluded examination of witnesses, ultimately leading to the decision to grant bail.
Fact of the Case:
Applicants Shoaib and Sajia were arrested on 08.09.2022 for possession of narcotic substances in commercial quantity, as per FIR/Case Crime No. 292 of 2022. They sought bail after being in judicial custody for over a year.
Finding of the Court:
The court noted the significant delay in the trial process, with the examination of key witnesses not being completed, and acknowledged that while Section 37 of the Act imposes restrictions on bail, it does not permit indefinite detention without trial.
Issues: Whether the applicants are entitled to bail under the provisions of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, considering the delay in trial and the requirements of Section 37.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the denial of bail does not justify prolonged custody without trial, and the significant delay in the prosecution's case warranted the granting of bail despite the serious nature of the charges.
Result: The bail application was allowed, and the applicants were ordered to be released on bail upon executing a personal bond and providing two reliable sureties.
JUDGMENT :
Ravindra Maithani, J.
Applicants Shoaib and Sajia are in judicial custody FIR/Case Crime No. 292 of 2022, under Section 8/22/60 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (“the Act”), Police Station Vanboolpura, District Nainital. They have sought their release on bail.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
3. According to the FIR, on 08.09.2022, narcotic substances, in commercial quantity, were recovered from the possession of the applicants.
4. Learned counsel for the applicants has tendered for the perusal of the Court the ordersheet of the case. It is taken on record.
5. Learned counsel for the applicants would submit that in the instant case, after the arrest of the applicants on 08.09.2022, charge sheet was submitted on 19.12.2022; charges were framed on 25.03.2023; the examination in chief of PW1 was recorded on 15.09.2023, but, it was not concluded on that date and the prosecution sought adjournment. Thereafter, the PW1 has not been produced for his examination in chief.
6. These factual aspects have not been denied by the learned State Counsel.
7. It is a case pertaining to recovery of narcotic substances in commercial quantity and, in such cases, Section 37 of the Act makes specific provisions. Bail in such cases may not be granted, unless the Court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. But, denial of bail does not give unfettered liberty to the prosecution to keep a person in custody without conducting a trial.
8. The applicants are in custody for more than a year. In between more than six months, even examination in chief of a witness has not been completely recorded.
9. Having considered the entirety of facts, this Court is of the view that the applicants deserve to be enlarged on bail.
10. The bail application is allowed.
11. Let the applicants be released on bail, on their executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties, each of the like amount, by each one of them, to the satisfaction of the Court concerned.
The court established that while Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act imposes strict conditions for bail, the right to a timely trial is paramount, and undue delay in procee....
The court established that the right to a timely trial is fundamental, and prolonged pre-trial detention without progress in the case can lead to the granting of bail, even in serious offenses under ....
The court established that prolonged detention without trial and lack of witness examination can justify the granting of bail, even in cases involving serious charges under the Narcotic Drugs and Psy....
Prolonged detention without trial and lack of witness examination can justify the granting of bail, even in cases involving serious charges under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act.
The court established that the right to a timely trial is fundamental, and prolonged detention without trial can warrant the granting of bail, even in serious narcotic cases under Section 37 of the A....
The court established that prolonged custody without trial and lack of witness examination can warrant the granting of bail, even in cases involving serious charges under the NDPS Act.
The decision emphasized the importance of considering the entirety of facts and the lack of substantial evidence against the applicant in granting bail.
Bail application – Denial of bail does not give unfettered liberty to prosecution to keep a person in custody without conducting trial.
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
