Can Rigour On Bail U/S 37 NDPS Act Have Same Efficacy Throughout Trial, Notwithstanding Period Of Custody? Himachal Pradesh High Court Asks
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has reiterated that the Constitutional guarantee of expeditious trial cannot be diluted by applying the rigors of Section 37 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act in perpetuity. Justice Satyen Vaidya was hearing a plea in terms of which the petitioner, an accused in an FIR registered under Sections 20 and 29 of NDPS Act, had prayed for grant...
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has reiterated that the Constitutional guarantee of expeditious trial cannot be diluted by applying the rigors of Section 37 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act in perpetuity.
Justice Satyen Vaidya was hearing a plea in terms of which the petitioner, an accused in an FIR registered under Sections 20 and 29 of NDPS Act, had prayed for grant of bail on the ground that his constitutional right of expeditious disposal of trial had been infringed. As per the petitioner, he was in custody for more than two years and the trial has not concluded, and was rather, progressing at "snail’s pace".
Out of the 25 cited witnesses, the prosecution was said to have examined only four witnesses.
Justice Vaidya observed that the fetters placed by Section 37 of NDPS Act, evidently have been instrumental in denial of right of bail to the petitioner in the instant case. It wondered whether the provision of Section 37 of the NDPS Act can be construed to have same efficacy throughout the pendency of trial, notwithstanding, the period of custody of the accused, especially, when it is weighed against his fundamental right to have expeditious disposal of trial.
The bench observed that the Constitutional guarantee of expeditious trial cannot be diluted by applying the rigors of Section 37 of NDPs Act in perpetuity. In order to fortify its view, the bench found it worthwhile to record the recent observations of Supreme Court in Mohd Muslim @ Hussain Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), wherein it was observed,
"Laws which impose stringent conditions for grant of bail, may be necessary in public interest; yet, if trials are not concluded in time, the injustice wrecked on the individual is immeasurable. The courts therefore, have to be sensitive to these aspects (because in the event of an acquittal, the loss to the accused is irreparable), and ensure that trials – especially in cases, where special laws enact stringent provisions, are taken up and concluded speedily.”
In view of the said legal position, the bench pointed that the petitioner is in custody since 2021 and the facts suggest that the trial is not likely to be concluded in near future and there is nothing on record to suggest that delay in trial is attributable to the petitioner.
With these facts and circumstances in mind the bench allowed the petition and admitted the petitioner on bail.
Case Title: Vikas @Vicky Vs State of Himachal Pradesh.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (HP) 33