"Inordinate Delay In Trial, Prolonged Judicial Custody": Delhi High Court Grants Bail To Man Incarcerated For Almost 8 Yrs In NDPS Case
The Delhi High Court has granted bail to a man incarcerated for almost 8 years in connection with a case registered under Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, on account of inordinate delay in his trial and prolonged judicial custody.Justice Subramonium Prasad observed that there was an "egregious violation of an accused's right to personal liberty and right to speedy trial"...
The Delhi High Court has granted bail to a man incarcerated for almost 8 years in connection with a case registered under Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, on account of inordinate delay in his trial and prolonged judicial custody.
Justice Subramonium Prasad observed that there was an "egregious violation of an accused's right to personal liberty and right to speedy trial" as, in the off-chance that the Petitioner is acquitted, it would entail an irretrievable loss of eight years of his life that cannot be compensated.
Emphasizing that fair, just and reasonable procedure is implicit in Article 21 and it creates a right in the accused to be tried speedily, the Court observed:
"This Court has consistently observed that while Courts must remain cognizant of the deleterious impact of drugs on society, it is also important to keep in mind that deprivation of personal liberty without the assurance of speedy trial contravenes the principles enshrined in our Constitution. In the instant case, the Petitioner has been incarcerated for almost eight years now, i.e. since 27.03.2014, for an offence that is punishable with a minimum imprisonment of ten years."
"This is an egregious violation of an accused's right to personal liberty and right to speedy trial as, in the off-chance that the Petitioner is acquitted, it would entail an irretrievable loss of eight years of his life that cannot be compensated."
The Court said that the question as to whether the petitioner played an active role in the commission of the offence of drug trafficking and supply was a matter of trial and the same cannot justify his prolonged incarceration.
The FIR was registered under sec. 468, 471, 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and sec. 20 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.
The Petitioner was arrested on 27.03.2014 and his first bail application moved before the Trial Court was dismissed on 06.05.2016 whereas the second bail application was dismissed on 02.02.2017.
The Petitioner had approached the High Court for interim bail. However, vide Order dated 19.01.2022, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the Court exercised its powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to covert the interim bail application into one for regular bail.
It was argued on behalf of the Petitioner that he was the sole bread earner in his family and that was in judicial custody for 7 years and 10 months.
Reliance was placed on the Supreme Court decision in Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee (Representing Undertrial Prisoners) v. Union of India to submit that the Supreme Court had rendered directions for the release of those undertrial prisoners who had been in jail for over five years for offences that entailed a punishment of minimum imprisonment of ten years and a minimum fine of rupees one lakh.
Citing this judgement, it was argued that the Petitioner had been in custody for almost eight years now and was, therefore, entitled to release.
On the other hand, the State opposed the grant of bail by arguing that the Apex Court directions were only a one-time measure and that there usas no mandate that in all cases, an undertial who has been in custody for more than five years for a punishment that entails minimum imprisonment of ten years must be automatically granted bail.
Reliance was also made on a judgement of the Delhi High Court in Atul Agarwal v. Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, to argue that the Supreme Court judgement had been incorrectly interpreted and that the matter must be referred to a larger Bench for final adjudication of the issue.
"The petition therein had been instituted with the aim to ensure that undertrial prisoners who had been languishing in jail for an extended period of time were granted bail despite the stringency of the provisions for bail under the NDPS Act. The underlying reason for the same was to uphold the right to personal liberty and the right to speedy trial of an undertrial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India," the Court noted.
At the outset, the Court perused the Supreme Court directions and observed that the same were not meant to be employed as one-time directions in the said case, but were meant to apply as a one-time measure in all cases in which the accused persons were in jail and their trials had been delayed.
"The intention of paragraph 16 was to convey that despite the absence or presence of delay in trial in a case, the Special Court was still free to exercise its power to grant bail under Section 37 of the NDPS Act. Furthermore, if the Special Court also retained the power to cancel bail if the accused was found to be misusing the same. The directions were certainly not, as the learned APP has submitted, meant to only apply in the case therein, but were directions that were to be followed by Courts in all cases pertaining to NDPS wherein the accused had been subjected to prolonged delay in their trials," the Court concluded.
It added "It is unconscionable to state that the rights guaranteed under Article 21 can be subjected to such arbitrary categorisation and would not apply across the board to all undertrials in NDPS cases who are at the receiving end of inordinate delay in trial."
Accordingly, the Court was of the view that the Petitioner was squarely covered by judgement of the Supreme Court and was entitled to release on account of inordinate delay in trial and prolonged judicial custody.
With the aforesaid observations, the Court granted bail to the petitioner.
Case Title: ANIL KUMAR @ NILLU v. STATE
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 223