District Judiciary's Reluctance In Granting Bail Burdens High Courts, Hierarchical Court Must Introspect: Punjab & Haryana High Court

While granting bail to a man booked for offences under the NDPS Act, the Punjab & Haryana High Court observed that district court's reluctance in granting bail burdens the High Court, delays hearing of matters like appeals, revision and it is for the "hierarchical court" like the high court to "introspect".

The Court said that, "Bails deal with pre-trial curtailment of liberty on unilateral allegations demanding paramount priority in judicial adjudication. However, trial courts, even in matters where bail should ordinarily be the norm often exhibit hesitation or reluctance in granting bail, and in all probabilities, they cannot be entirely blamed for this harsh approach. It would always be better to err on the side of liberty".

"It is for us, the hierarchical court, to introspect. Such reluctance exacerbates the burden on High Courts, where the influx of bail applications significantly delays the adjudication before single benches, i.e., the statutory criminal appeals, revisions, and petitions for quashing," it added.

The Court raised concerns about lawyers being deprived of "essential experience in the criminal field" due to being burdened by bail applications.

"The legal professionals are happy to surf over the underlying fault lines, and the Bar is oblivious to the after-effects. It creates a domino effect, depriving the lawyers of essential experience in the criminal field of law, and Justice is the likely casualty of this cascade. The repercussions are particularly severe under Sections 528, 348, and 358 of the BNSS, 2023 (analogous to Sections 482, 311, and 319 of the CrPC, 1973), which affect investigations and even stagnate the criminal trials," it said.

Despite this judicial paralysis these cases remain classified as pending or in arrears in the National Judicial Data Grid (NJDG), unjustly blaming the trial courts for the delays, which are beyond their control, it added.

"Such systemic inefficiencies create an environment where those employing delay tactics through vexatious litigation or procedural abuse gain undue advantage, undermining the very fabric of criminal justice administration.”

The Court emphasised, “Those who bully bear the brunt.”

The development came while hearing a regular bail plea of a man booked under Section 21 (b) (Punishment for contravention in relation to manufactured drugs and preparations) and 29 (Punishment for abetment and criminal conspiracy) of NDPS Act.

According to the prosecution, 9.72 grams of heroin from one Mohit and 8.16 grams of heroin was found in possession from Ankit , who were present in a farm taken on lease by the petitioner.

After analysing the submissions, the Court found that the alleged quantity of the contraband comes under "intermediate quantity" which is much less than commercial and just 7.15% of the upper limit of the Intermediate.

Referring to Sami Ullaha v Superintendent Narcotic Control Bureau, [(2008) 16 SCC 471], the Supreme Court held that in intermediate quantity, the rigors of the provisions of Section 37 may not be justified.

"In the present case, the Police recovered 9.72 grams and 8.16 grams of heroin from the possession of the co-accused individuals, who were allegedly located on the farm leased by the petitioner, as per secret information received by the authorities. However, no recovery of narcotics was made from the petitioner. Despite this, the Ld. Additional Sessions Judge dismissed three regular bail petitions filed by the present petitioner, primarily relying on the petitioner's antecedents," the court said.

The Court opined that the ASJ did not adequately consider the probative legal value of the evidence, the relatively lesser quantities involved falling considerably lower than commercial thresholds, the petitioner's extended custody, and the lack of causal nexus between the prior conduct and present allegations.

Stating that, "prolonged incarceration, generally militates against the most precious fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution and in such a situation, the conditional liberty must override the statutor embargo created under Section 37(1)(b)(it) of the NDPS Act'", the Court allowed the plea.

Mr. Ajay Ghangas, Advocate for the petitoner.

Mr. Rajat Gautam, Addl. A.G. Haryana.

Title: Yogendra v. State of Haryana

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 420

Click here to read/download the order