SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SURYA KANT, DIPANKAR DATTA, JJ.
Rabi Prakash – Appellant
Versus
The State of Odisha – Respondent
Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No (s).4169 of 2023
Decided On : 13-07-2023
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought bail in a case involving the possession of narcotics. The trial had commenced, but only one out of 19 witnesses had been examined.Finding of the Court:
The court granted bail to the petitioner with the requirement of furnishing bail bonds and producing two local sureties before the Trial Court.Issues:
Prolonged incarceration, residency status of the petitioner.Ratio Decidendi:
Prolonged incarceration may lead to conditional liberty overriding statutory restrictions under Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act.Final Decision:
The petitioner was granted bail with stringent conditions imposed due to being a non-resident.ORDER
1. The petitioner seeks his enlargement on bail in P.S.Case No.91 of 2019, registered at Police Station Semiliguda, District Koraput, out of which T.R.Case No.27 of 2019 is pending in the Court of Addl.Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Koraput, for commission of offence punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, ‘the NDPS Act’).
2. The prosecution case appears to be that the police party while on patrolling duty on 02.10.2019 at about 12.30 p.m. on Nandapur-Semiliguda road MDR-55, spotted one full body twelve wheeler Truck (Eicher) bearing No.EB-13-BD-5753 coming from Nandapur side at a high speed and accordingly they chased and detained the truck at Bodenga Chhak and found three persons boarded in the said truck including the driver. Eventually, 247 kg. Ganja was recovered from the truck. The petitioner was one of the occupants of the truck and was arrested at the spot. He has been in custody for more than three and a half years. There are no criminal antecedents against the petitioner.
3. We are informed that the trial has commenced but only 1 out of the 19 witnesses has been examined. The conclusion of trial will, thus, take some more time.
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 1 st condition stands complied with. So far as the 2 nd 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. However, we find some merit in the contention of learned counsel for the respondent – State that the petitioner being not a resident of the State of Orissa, some stringent conditions are required to be imposed upon him.
6. Consequently, while directing that the petitioner shall be released on bail on his furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of the Trial Court, it is directed that he shall be required to produce two local sureties before the Trial Court. The petitioner shall also appear before the Trial Court on every date of hearing. In case he absents himself, it shall be taken as a misuse of concession of bail granted to him today by this Court.
Ordered accordingly.
7. The Special Leave Petition stands disposed of accordingly.
8. As a result, pending interlocutory applications also stand disposed of.
Prolonged incarceration may lead to conditional liberty overriding statutory restrictions under Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act.
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 and lack of witness examination can justify granting bail under the NDPS Act, despite the stringent conditions imposed by Section 37.
The court established that the presence of cannabis in the forensic report could mitigate the application of Sec. 37 of the NDPS Act, allowing for bail under specific circumstances.
In cases involving commercial quantities of narcotic drugs under the NDPS Act, the statutory embargo under S. 37(1)(b) prevails; prolonged incarceration does not provide sufficient grounds for bail i....
In cases involving commercial quantities of narcotics under the NDPS Act, the statutory embargo under Section 37(1)(b) prevails; prolonged incarceration alone is insufficient to grant bail when the a....
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.