Incarceration Due To Delay In Trial Violates Article 21; Bail Can Be Considered In Such Cases Despite Bar Under NDPS Act : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court observed that if there's an undue delay in the completion of the trial, then there would be no impediment to consider the grant of bail to the accused under Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act despite not meeting the stringent test under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.

“It is to observe that failure to conclude the trial within a reasonable time resulting in prolonged incarceration militates against the precious fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, and as such, conditional liberty overriding the statutory embargo created under Section 37(1)(b) of the NDPS Act may, in such circumstances, be considered.", the bench comprising Justices JK Maheshwari and KV Viswanathan observed.

Section 37 states that bail should not be granted to an accused unless the accused is able to satisfy twin conditions i.e. reasonable ground for believing that the accused is not guilty of such an offence and that the accused would not commit an offence or is not likely to commit an offence, if granted bail.

In the present case, the accused was in custody for more than two years in connection with the offence punishable under Section 8 read with Sections 22 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act,1985, and the trial was not concluded. 

It was contended by the accused that the Panch witness examined before the trial court had not supported the case of the prosecution. However, it was contended by the prosecution that the bail could not be granted as an Investigation Officer has not been examined as a panch witness.

Rejecting the prosecution's contention, the Court after perusing the material evidence placed on record observed that on examination, the panch witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution and on facts of the case, the court was not inclined to consider the Investigation Officer as a panch witness.

Based on the above premise, the Court granted bail to the accused after noting that undue delay in the trial resulted in prolonged incarceration which goes against the spirit of Article 21 of the Constitution.

In other words, the Court observed that Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, does not fetter the grant of bail to an accused on the ground of undue delay in the completion of the trial.

Previously, the Supreme Court in the case of Mohd. Muslim v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Rabi Prakash V. The State of Odisha while considering a bail application in an offence under the NDPS Act held that in case of prolonged incarceration, conditional liberty will override the statutory embargo under Section 37 of the Act, which means that undue delay in a trial can be a ground to grant bail to an accused, despite the rigors of Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act 1985.

Counsels For Petitioner(s) Mr. Sidharth Dave, Sr. Adv. Ms. Akriti, Adv. Mr. Rajesh Ranjan, Adv. Mr. Adil Vasudeva, Adv. Mr. Prateek Yadav, AOR

Counsels For Respondent(s) Mr. Pashupathi Nath Razdan, AOR Mr. Mirza Kayesh Begg, Adv. Ms. Maitreyee Jagat Joshi, Adv. Mr. Astik Gupta, Adv. Ms. Akanksha Tomar, Adv. Mr. Argha Roy, Adv. Ms. Ojaswini Gupta, Adv. Ms. Ruby, Adv.

Case Title: ANKUR CHAUDHARY VERSUS STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH, SLP(Crl) No. 004648 / 2024

Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 416

Click here to read/download the order