78 Adjournments, No Substantial Trial: Gujarat High Court Grants Bail To NDPS Accused Citing Prolonged Incarceration

The Gujarat High Court recently granted regular bail to a man booked in a case under the NDPS Act after observing that while the trial had not progressed substantially, the  matter had been adjourned almost 78 times leading to “prolonged incarceration” and "blink hope of a speedy trial" in the case. 

In doing so the high court further noted that there were many NDPS cases pending before the concerned court which required urgent disposal. 

Justice Gita Gopi observed, “The Rojnama of the trial shows that though the matter had been opened for the prosecution on 30.04.2022 and from 16.03.2023, the evidence of the prosecution, nothing substantial has occurred in the trial proceedings. Almost 78 times, the matter has been adjourned. Thus, taking into consideration the law with regard to the precious fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the prolonged incarceration and the blink hope of any speedy trial in the matter, this Court finds this to be a fit case where discretion could be exercised in favour of the applicant”.

Additionally the court had called for a report from the concerned judge conducting the matter. Perusing through a February 27 report of the 12th Additional and District Judge Special Judge NDPS, Surat, the high court observed that there were "many other cases pending in his Court, which requires urgent disposal, as they under direction of the Court". 

The FIR was registered under the Sections 8(C) (prohibits the production, manufacture, possession, sale, transport, and use of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances except as authorized by the Act), Section 20(b)(II)(C)((10 to 20 years imprisonment and fine) for possession, sale, purchase, or transport of cannabis in commercial quantities) and Section 29 (Penalizes anyone involved in a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence under the Act, treating them as equally liable as the principal offender) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS).

The Counsel for the applicant contended that the successive bail plea was moved primarily on the ground that the applicant is in jail since a long time, that there has been delay in trial and it is unlikely that the matter could be taken up for recording of the evidence of the witnesses.

He further contended that despite 78 adjournments the status still shows that it is posted for the evidence of the prosecution side. He further submitted that so far not a single witness has been examined. 

He further relied on the Supreme Court Judgements which said that long incarceration in the jail has weighed to the Supreme Court and has considered it as violation of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, and as such, conditional liberty overriding the statuary embargo created under Section 37(1)(b) of the NDPS Act may, in such circumstances, be considered.

Meanwhile the State's counsel opposed the plea on the ground that once a trial begins, then no concession of bail should be granted and urged the Court to reject the regular bail plea.

The Court then allowed the regular bail application subject to certain conditions including execution of a personal bond of Rs 15,000 among others. The Court further directed the Sessions Judge concerned to issue warrant or take appropriate action in the matter in case of any breach of conditions.

Case Title: Tofan Sudarshan Shahu vs State of Gujarat

Click Here To Read/Download Order