Right To Speedy Trial: NDPS Accused Allegedly Found With 500Kg Contraband Gets Bail From Punjab & Haryana High Court After 3 Yrs
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has granted bail to a man, allegedly found in conscious possession of 500 kgs of poppy husk without any licence, after three years of custody as an undertrial.Justice Pankaj Jain observed,"Right to speedy trial is one of the objectives of NDPS Act and is rather one of the checks and balances provided under the Act. Section 36 NDPS Act recognizes the need...
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has granted bail to a man, allegedly found in conscious possession of 500 kgs of poppy husk without any licence, after three years of custody as an undertrial.
Justice Pankaj Jain observed,
"Right to speedy trial is one of the objectives of NDPS Act and is rather one of the checks and balances provided under the Act. Section 36 NDPS Act recognizes the need for speedy trial. The provision contained in Section 36 providing for constitution of Special Courts is a means to achieve the end objective of speedy trial. Section 36 well recognizes the need for speedy trial."
The Petitioner, in custody since November 2019, sought regular bail in connection with the FIR registered against him for the offences punishable under Sections 15(c) and 27(a) of the NDPS Act. He submitted that he has been behind the bars for around three years and the trial had not progressed for over a year and a half, given that there were 18 witnesses in the matter and none had been examined.
As per the petitioner, even though he was caught with commercial quantity contraband, Section 37 of the NDPS Act (which provides for non-bailable offences) was still subservient to the guarantee under Article 21, which guarantee was also recognized by the NDPS Act itself.
The petitioner relied on Supreme Court's decision in Shariful Islam @ Sarif v. State of West Bengal, to establish that undertrials under NDPS Act are entitled to regular bail despite custody under Section 37. Reliance was also placed on Sujit Tiwari v. State of Gujarat and Another, where the Supreme Court held that a person in custody for more than 2 years was entitled to bail.
The State, on the other hand, submitted that the trial could not proceed because some co-accused persons could not be arrested till date.
The single bench of Justice Pankaj Jain ordered for granting of bail to the petitioner, adding that, "the petitioner had already suffered prolonged incarceration of about three years, there was no other case under the provisions of NDPS Act registered against him, and that there were 18 cited witnesses," who had to be examined.
Case Title: Naib Singh v. State of Haryana
Citation: CRM-M-29466-2022
Coram: Justice Pankaj Jain
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 300