BAIL APPLN. 1621/2022

Page 1 of 18

$~42

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Date of Decision: 20.07.2022

+

BAIL APPLN. 1621/2022

GURMITO

..... Petitioner

Through:

Mr. Arjun Natarajan, Ms. Lakshmi

Srivastava, Advs

versus

CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

..... Respondent

Through:

Mr. Anil Grover, SPP, Mr. Neeraj

Bhardwaj, Mr. Anurg, Advs.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASMEET SINGH

:

JASMEET SINGH, J (ORAL)

1.

This is an application seeking release of applicant on regular bail till

final disposal of CBI EO-II EOU-V New Delhi registered by Central Bureau

of Investigation in connection with FIR No. RC 220/2016/E0022/CBI/EO-II

u/s 20 read with Sec 8 and 29 of NDPS Act, 1985 (hereinafter “Act”)

registered by CBI dated 17.12.2016, giving rise to filing of charge sheet no.

2/2017 dated 31.03.2017.

2.

It is submitted by Mr. Natrajan, learned counsel for the applicant that

the applicant has been in judicial custody since 18.12.2016 except for a

period of 20 days (16.06.2021 to 06.07.2021) and she is covered by

judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Supreme Court Legal Aid

Committee (Representing undertrial prisoners) vs. Union of India, [(1994)

6 SCC 731].

This is a digitally signed Judgement.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/002888

BAIL APPLN. 1621/2022

Page 2 of 18

3.

The Ld. Counsel for the Applicant submits that in terms of this

judgment where an undertrial prisoner is charged with an offence under the

Act with minimum imprisonment of 10 years and minimum fine of 1 lakh,

such an undertrial prisoner may be released on bail if he has been in jail for

not less than 5 years subject to conditions prescribed in the said judgment.

4.

Mr. Bhardwaj, learned counsel for the respondent states that the

observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court were only a one time measure

passed in peculiar circumstances of that case, where the NDPS Courts were

not functioning within the State of Maharashtra at that point in time.

5.

Per contra, Mr. Natrajan has drawn my attention to a judgement dated

21.03.2022 passed in Bail Appl. 1724/2021 in Anil Kumar v. State by a

coordinate bench of this Court, wherein this Court has held:

the same. The directions were certainly not, as the learned

APP has submitted, meant to only apply in the case therein,

but were directions that were to be followed by Courts in all

cases pertaining to NDPS wherein the accused had been

subjected to prolonged delay in their trials.

13.

It is unconscionable to state that the rights guaranteed

under Article 21 can be subjected to such arbitrary

categorisation and would not apply across the board to all

undertrials in NDPS cases who are at the receiving end of

inordinate delay in trial.”

This is a digitally signed Judgement.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/002888

BAIL APPLN. 1621/2022

Page 3 of 18

6.

In the present case, as already observed, the applicant was arrested in

2016. She has been in custody for 5 and a half years.

7.

It is stated that despite passage of 5 years 6 months, only the first

witness is under examination out of the list of 33 witnesses.

8.

A coordinate bench of this Court in another case titled Atul Aggarwal

v. Directorate of Revenue Intelligence [(2021) SCC OnLine Del 5489] has

observed:

also not ignore the plight of the undertrials who remain

languishing in jails as their trials are delayed with no end in

sight. Deprivation of personal liberty without the assurance of

speedy trial contravenes the principles enshrined in our

Constitution

under

Article

21,

and

is,

therefore,

unconstitutional to its very core. In such cases, in absence of

the pronouncement of conviction, the process itself becomes

the punishment. Nine years cannot be said to be a short

period of time.

This is a digitally signed Judgement.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/002888

BAIL APPLN. 1621/2022

Page 4 of 18

released on bail by virtue of this order.