3 Yrs In Custody But Only 7 Witnesses Examined: Punjab & Haryana HC Grants Bail, Says S.37 NDPS Act Can Be Relaxed To Preserve Right To Speedy Trial

Observing that the 'right to a speedy trial' had been violated, the Punjab & Haryana High Court granted bail to a man who had been in custody for over 3 years, accused of being in possession of contraband in a commercial quantity.

Justice N.S. Shekhawat said since right to speedy trial of the accused has been violated the condition prescribed under Section 37, can be dispensed with.

"It is also borne out from the record that the petitioner is in custody for the last more than 02 years and 11 months and only 7 witnesses have been examined so far. Even the prosecution could not bring on record any material, which would show that the trial has been delayed on account of any fault on the part of the present petitioner. Thus, the 'right to speedy trial' of the petitioner as enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India is violated and the conditions as mentioned in Section 37 of the NDPS Act can be dispensed with at this stage for the limited purpose of grant of concession of bail," said the Court.

According to Section 37, no person accused of an offence punishable involving commercial quantity shall be released on bail or on his own bond unless after giving opportunity to Public Prosecutor, Court believes he is not guilty.

As per prosecution, the petitioner was found in conscious possession of 1100 narcotic tablets containing salt Tramadol Hydrochloride and was arrested at the spot and hence booked under Section 22(C) of NDPS Act, in 2020.

The counsel for the petitioner contended that the he has been falsely involved in the present case  He further submitted that in the present case, only 7 prosecution witnesses have been examined, out of total 21 prosecution witnesses and the trial has been unnecessarily delayed by the prosecution.

Considering the submissions, the Court referred to Apex Court's decision in Dheeraj Kumar Shukla v. State of Uttar Pradesh, in which it was held, "However, in the absence of criminal antecedents and the fact that the petitioner is in custody for the last two and a half years, we are satisfied that the conditions of Section 37 of the Act can be dispensed with at this stage, more so when the trial is yet to commence though the charges have been framed."

Adding that even the prosecution could not bring on record any material, which would show that the trial has been delayed on account of any fault on the part of the present petitioner, the court said thus, "the 'right to speedy trial' of the petitioner as enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India is violated."

Consequently, the relief was granted and the accused was released on bail subject to certain conditions.

Appearance: Amandeep Chhabra, Advocate and Impinder Singh Dhaliwal, Advocate for the petitioner.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (PH) 194

Case Title: Khushi Ram @ Happy v. State of Punjab

Click here to read/download the order.