Urgent Need For Special NDPS Courts In Punjab & Haryana, Hoping For Speedy Trial Is Over-Expectation Due To Heavy Pendency: High Court
The Punjab & Haryana High Court has said that expecting speedy trial from Courts will be "over expectation" given the amount of pendency it is facing and there is a "dire necessity" of making Special NDPS Courts.
Justice Sureshwar Thakur and Justice Sudeepti Sharma said, "If the heavy docket of subjudice litigations of every genre becomes the deterrent for the learned trial Judges concerned, thus ensuring the makings of expeditious trials vis-a-vis the apposite charges drawn vis-a- vis the accused, especially the one relating to the accused concerned allegedly consciously and exclusively possessing the commercial quantity of the relevant narcotic drug(s) and psychotropic substance(s). Therefore, to the considered objective mind of this Court, there is also dire necessity of making Special NDPS Courts in the States of Punjab, Haryana and in the Union Territory, Chandigarh."
The Court requested the Chief Justice to take up the matter with the State Government to establish Special Courts in Punjab, Haryana and Chandigarh.
These observations were made while hearing a reference plea in an NDPS matter, where one of the questions was, whether a prolonged delay in concluding trial can be a ground for bail when the accused is allegedly found in possession of commercial quantity, easing the bar of satisfying twin condition laid down under Section 37 of NDPS Act.
Referring to the catena of judgements including Union of India through Narcotic Control Bureau, Lucknow versus Md. Nawaz Khan, the Court said that the Apex Court has explicitly held that as per Section 37, the bail should not be granted to an accused unless the accused is allegedly found in possession of commercial quantity unless he is able to satisfy twin conditions i.e. reasonable ground for believing that the accused is not guilty of such an offence and that the accused would not commit an offence or is not likely to commit an offence, if granted bail.
The Court added that the Public Prosecutor should also be given the opportunity to oppose the application for regular bail.
The division bench also referred to Union of India vs. K.A. Najeeb, to underscore that the Supreme Court held that stringent provision of UAPA per se does not oust the ability of Constitutional Courts to grant bail on the ground of violation of Fundamental Right to Speedy Trial.
It explained that the philosophy behind granting bail on grounds of prolonged trial despite the bar laid down under the special laws is the "necessity to safeguard the guaranteed right of speedy trial vis-a-vis the accused, thus within the four corners of Article 21 of the Constitution of India."
However, it added that "the expectations of a speedy trial being made qua the accused concerned, may be thus an over expectation(s) from the trial Court(s) concerned, especially given the existence thereins of a heavy docket of subjudice cases of various genres."
The Court said that only the Courts cannot be blamed for delay in trials but the liability needs to be vicariously shared "by the prosecution as well as by the accused."
The division bench said that the Courts should also keep in mind the time required in examining number of prosecution witnesses before granting bail on the ground of delay in trials.
"If the relevant status report makes echoings that given the number of the prosecution witnesses, besides the tardy time schedule set-forth for the makings of trials against the accused, therebys also the Courts concerned rather than proceeding to record a finding viz-a-vis the twin conditions becoming satisfied against the accused, thus may proceed to order for the making of an expeditious conclusion of trial, so that therebys, the Constitutional right of speedy and expeditious trial quartered within the domain of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, thus becomes endowed upon the accused," added the Court.
Justice Thakur also highlighted that the charges in the trial should also be expeditiously framed and therefore non-framing of charge should also be a ground for granting bail to the accused in NDPS cases.
Title: Samdarsh Kumar @ Joseph v. State of U.T., Chandigarh
Mr. Aashish Chopra, Senior Advocate (Amicus Curiae) assisted by Mr. Gagandeep Singh, Advocate.
Mr. Rajeev Anand, Addl. APP for U.T., Chandigarh.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 251