Bombay High Court Grants Bail in NDPS Case, Citing Prolonged Pre-Trial Detention and Upholding Right to Speedy Trial

Mumbai, Maharashtra – May 09, 2025 – The Bombay High Court, presided over by Justice Milind N.Jadhav , granted regular bail to Rahmeen Rafiq Charania , an accused in a Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act case, who had been incarcerated for nearly four years. The court emphasized that prolonged pre-trial detention, with no likelihood of a speedy trial, infringes upon the fundamental right to life and personal liberty, including the right to a speedy trial, enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution, potentially overriding the stringent conditions for bail under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.

Case Background

Rahmeen Rafiq Charania , arrested on July 13, 2021, faced charges under Sections 8(c) read with 20(b)(ii)(c), 27, 27(A), 28, 29, 30, and 35 of the NDPS Act. The prosecution alleged he was found in possession of 320 grams of charas (an intermediate quantity) and 10 kgs of brownies laced with charas. At the time of the bail order, Charania had spent 3 years, 9 months, and 26 days in custody. His bail application (BA 5385 / 2024) was filed on December 20, 2024.

Court's Observations on Procedural Delays and Applicant's Conduct

In previous hearings, the Court had expressed strong displeasure with the Union of India (Respondent No. 1) for its repeated failure to file an affidavit-in-reply despite multiple opportunities. An order, seemingly from late December 2024 or early January 2025, noted the "dereliction on the part of the Union of India to contest the matters." The Court highlighted the "sorry state of affairs" when none appeared for the Union of India during one such hearing.

Conversely, the Court took positive note of the applicant's conduct while incarcerated. Justice Jadhav observed that Charania , a "young offender," was "educating himself" by pursuing a post-graduation diploma in Counselling Psychology through distance learning from Symbiosis Centre. He had also previously obtained a Master of Arts in Counselling Psychology. The applicant had tragically lost his father during his incarceration in the COVID-19 pandemic. The Court remarked, "every opportunity to continue studies and become a good citizen should be given to an undertrial accused in such a case."

The Legal Tightrope: Section 37 NDPS Act vs. Article 21

The judgment extensively deliberated on the conflict between the stringent bail conditions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act and the fundamental right to a speedy trial under Article 21. Section 37(1)(b) mandates that for offences involving commercial quantity or specific sections like 27A, bail cannot be granted unless the Public Prosecutor has been heard and the court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe the accused is not guilty and is unlikely to commit any offence while on bail.

Justice Jadhav acknowledged the legislative intent to deny bail in serious drug offences but posed a critical question in light of trial delays and prison overcrowding: "How can Courts find a balance between the two polarities?"

The Court underscored that "when the case is such that involves a question of personal liberty of an undertrial who is incarcerated for a very long period, the powers [of High Courts to grant bail] are wide and unfettered by conditions, the principle rule being that bail is the rule and refusal is the exception."

Reliance on Precedents and Constitutional Principles

Justice Jadhav meticulously reviewed a plethora of Supreme Court and High Court judgments, reinforcing the principles underpinning the grant of bail in cases of prolonged detention:

Speedy Trial as a Fundamental Right: Citing Hussainara Khatoon , Abdul Rehman Antulay , and P. Ramachandra Rao , the Court reiterated that a speedy trial is an integral part of Article 21, and undue delay can vitiate the process.

"Bail is the Rule, Jail is the Exception": Referencing Satender Kumar Antil and Emperor vs H.L. Hutchinson , the judgment emphasized this foundational principle of bail jurisprudence.

Impact of Prolonged Incarceration: The Court highlighted the "prisonisation" effect discussed in Mohd. Muslim Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) , where undertrials risk losing their identity and dignity, and the irreparable loss if acquitted after long detention, as noted in State of Kerela V. Raneef .

Overriding Effect of Article 21 on Special Statutes: Cases like Union of India v. K. A. Najeeb and Ankur Chaudhary were cited to show that even under special laws like NDPS, prolonged incarceration without trial can be a ground for bail, with Article 21 potentially overriding statutory restrictions.

The Question of "How Long is Too Long?": Drawing from Mohamed Hakim Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) , the Court stressed the need for judicial proactiveness in preventing the defeat of the right to speedy trial.

State's Duty: Quoting Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh , the Court noted that if the State cannot ensure a speedy trial, it should not oppose bail merely on the seriousness of the crime, as Article 21 applies irrespective of the offence's nature.

The judgment also referred to the alarming statistic from a report on Mumbai Central Prison (Arthur Road Jail) being overcrowded by 5-6 times its capacity, terming the situation "inhumane."

Rationale for Granting Bail

Concluding that the applicant's continued detention was unjust, Justice Jadhav based the decision on several factors:

1. Extended Incarceration: The applicant had been in custody for 3 years, 9 months, and 26 days.

2. Bleak Prospect of Speedy Trial: The Court found no possibility of the trial commencing or concluding in the near future.

3. Violation of Article 21: Such prolonged detention violates the fundamental right to a speedy trial.

4. Judicial Precedents: Numerous Supreme Court and High Court decisions have granted bail in similar NDPS cases involving long pre-trial detention.

The Court observed, "Detaining an under-trial prisoner for such an extended period further violates his fundamental right to speedy trial flowing from Article 21 of the Constitution... detaining an under-trial person in prison for a long period only serves to legitimise the award of 'Surrogate Punishment' to that person without trial which amounts to pre-trial punishment."

Bail Granted with Conditions

The High Court allowed the bail application subject to the following principal conditions: * Furnishing a P.R. Bond of Rs. 25,000/- with one or two sureties.

* Provision for provisional cash bail for immediate release.

* Furnishing residential address to the police and trial court.

* Reporting to the Investigating Officer as required.

* Attending the trial court on the first Tuesday of every month.

* Cooperating with the trial and not seeking unnecessary adjournments.

* Not leaving Maharashtra without prior permission of the Trial Court and depositing his passport.

* Not influencing witnesses or tampering with evidence.

Any infraction or two consecutive defaults in attendance would lead to bail cancellation.

The Court clarified that its observations were prima facie for the purpose of the bail application and would not influence the trial on merits.

This judgment serves as a significant reiteration of the judiciary's role in balancing the objectives of stringent laws like the NDPS Act with the sacrosanct constitutional rights of individuals, particularly the right to a speedy trial and personal liberty.