High Court Grants Bail in NDPS Case Citing Prolonged Custody and Trial Delays

Court: High Court (Before Manjari Nehru Kaul , J.) Decision: Bail granted under Section 439 Cr.P.C. Context: Petitioner accused under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act), facing prolonged pre-trial detention due to repeated absence of prosecution witnesses.

In a recent judgment, the High Court granted bail to a petitioner who had been in custody since February 22, 2022, in connection with an FIR registered under Sections 15(c), 25, 27, and 29 of the NDPS Act. The decision, delivered by Justice Manjari Nehru Kaul , hinged on the extensive period of incarceration and the unlikelihood of the trial concluding in the near future due to delays attributable to the prosecution.

Case Background

The petitioner was arrested following FIR No.35 dated February 28, 2022, registered at Police Station Talwandi Sabo, District Bathinda. The prosecution's case alleged that the petitioner was apprehended at the spot along with a co-accused, Tarsem Singh . A significant recovery of 697 kgs of poppy husk was reportedly effected from a truck owned by the petitioner.

Arguments Presented

Petitioner's Contentions: The counsel for the petitioner argued for bail on several grounds: * Prolonged Incarceration: The petitioner had been in custody since February 22, 2022, awaiting trial conclusion. * Parity with Co-accused: Co-accused Tarsem Singh had already been granted bail by the same court on March 5, 2024, primarily due to trial delays caused by non-appearance of prosecution witnesses. * Trial Delay: The trial was progressing slowly due to the consistent absence of prosecution witnesses before the trial court, preventing the completion of evidence recording. The petitioner argued he should not suffer due to delays solely attributable to the prosecution. * Judicial Precedent: Reliance was placed on the Supreme Court's decision in Dheeraj Kumar Shukla v. State of Uttar Pradesh (SLP(Crl.) No.6690/2022), where bail was granted on account of long incarceration. * Criminal Antecedents: The petitioner's counsel fairly disclosed previous NDPS Act cases. In one Punjab case, the petitioner was acquitted. In another Rajasthan case, though convicted, his sentence was suspended by the Rajasthan High Court, which noted non-adherence to NDPS Act provisions, suggesting remote chances of the conviction being sustained.

State's Submissions: The learned State counsel, opposing the bail plea, highlighted: * Serious Allegations: The recovery of a commercial quantity (697 kgs) of poppy husk from the petitioner's truck. * Witness Examination Status: Out of 20 cited prosecution witnesses, only 3 had been fully examined, and one partially. * Parity Acknowledged (with a caveat): While admitting the petitioner's case was similar to co-accused Tarsem Singh , the State counsel contended that Tarsem Singh was granted bail due to the non-appearance of prosecution witnesses.

Court's Reasoning and Observations

Justice Manjari Nehru Kaul , after hearing both parties and perusing the record, observed:

"The petitioner has now been in custody since 22.02.2022. It is evident that the trial has been prolonged only on account of repeated non-appearance of the prosecution witnesses, who in the case in hand are all officials."

The Court noted that the co-accused, Tarsem Singh , was granted bail for precisely the same reason. With 13 prosecution witnesses still to be examined, the Court found "no likelihood of the trial concluding in the near future."

Citing these circumstances and the observations made by the Supreme Court in Dheeraj Kumar Shukla's case (ibid) , the Court deemed it fit to extend the concession of bail to the petitioner.

Final Decision and Implications

The High Court allowed the petition and ordered the petitioner to be admitted to bail, subject to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate.

Crucially, the Court clarified:

"However, it is made clear that anything observed hereinabove shall not be construed to be an expression of opinion on the merits of the case."

Furthermore, a standard condition was imposed:

"Needless to add here, in case the petitioner misuses the concession of bail, the State would be at liberty to approach this Court for cancellation of bail in the instant case."

This judgment underscores the judiciary's concern over prolonged pre-trial detention, especially when delays are attributable to the prosecution, such as the non-appearance of official witnesses. It reiterates the principle that an accused cannot be indefinitely incarcerated pending trial, balancing the interests of justice with the rights of the individual, even in cases involving serious offences under the NDPS Act.