9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (11) TMI 1457 - HC - Indian LawsGrant of regular bail - conscious possession of 500 kilograms of poppy husk without any licence - right to speedy trial - petitioner has undergone custody of approximately 3 years - HELD THAT - The petitioner has already suffered prolonged incarceration of about 3 years. There is no other case under the provisions of NDPS Act registered against the petitioner. There are 18 cited witnesses and, thus trial is expected to take a long time and is not going to conclude in near future. In the case of SHARIFUL ISLAM @ SARIF VERSUS THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL 2022 (8) TMI 1493 - SC ORDER , Apex Court found that an under-trial having suffered incarceration over 1 year and 6 months is entitled for grant of regular bail. 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. It is only with an objective to synthesize the right to speedy trial and rigors of Section 37 that the Supreme Court in the afore-referred cases granted concession of regular bail to the under-trials solely on the basis of long incarceration that they have suffered owing to delay in trial. The petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Ld. Trial Court/Duty Magistrate, concerned and subject to fulfilment of conditions imposed - petition allowed.
Issues:
Grant of regular bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in a case involving NDPS Act violations. Analysis: 1. The petitioner filed a petition seeking regular bail in a case registered under Sections 15(c) and 27(a) of the NDPS Act, 1985. The petitioner was found in possession of 500 kilograms of poppy husk without a license. The trial had not progressed significantly, with the petitioner being in custody since November 30, 2019. The petitioner argued for bail based on the right to speedy trial guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, citing lack of progress in the trial and the absence of other cases under the NDPS Act against him. 2. The petitioner's counsel referenced various judgments, including Satnam Singh vs. State of Punjab, where bail was granted to an under-trial after more than 2 years in custody. Additionally, judgments like Shariful Islam @ Sarif vs. The State of West Bengal and Sujit Tiwari vs. State of Gujarat highlighted instances where prolonged incarceration led to bail grants. The petitioner's counsel argued that Section 37 of the NDPS Act should yield to the fundamental right of a speedy trial under Article 21. 3. The State did not contest the petitioner's prolonged custody but mentioned delays in trial proceedings due to the unarrested co-accused and supplementary Challan filings. The Court acknowledged the petitioner's extended incarceration of about 3 years, the absence of other NDPS Act cases against him, and the likelihood of a protracted trial due to numerous witnesses. 4. Referring to precedents such as Shariful Islam @ Sarif's case and Gopal Krishna Patra @ Gopalrusma's case, the Court emphasized the importance of balancing the right to speedy trial under Article 21 with the provisions of the NDPS Act. The Court recognized the need for a speedy trial under Section 36 of the NDPS Act and granted bail to the petitioner considering the prolonged custody period and the unlikelihood of a prompt trial conclusion. 5. The Court imposed specific conditions along with bail, including restrictions on misusing liberty, tampering with evidence, attending trial dates, committing similar offenses, depositing the passport, providing cellphone number to authorities, and avoiding trial delays. Any breach of these conditions could lead to bail cancellation upon prosecution's request. 6. In conclusion, the Court allowed the petition, ordering the petitioner's release on bail upon fulfilling the specified conditions to the satisfaction of the Trial Court/Duty Magistrate.
|
