Source: Supreme Court

Why in News?

Recently the Supreme Court in the matter of Ankur Chaudhary v. State Of Madhya Pradesh granted bail under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS) 1985 despite not meeting the stringent criteria of Section 37 has garnered attention.

• It emphasizes that prolonged incarceration due to undue trial delays contradicts the fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution, thus allowing conditional liberty to supersede statutory restrictions in such cases.

What was the Background of Rajiv Bansal & Ors v. State of Maharashtra and Ors?

• The Rajiv Bansal (accused) has been in custody for over two years due to charges under Section 8 read with Sections 22 and 29 of NDPS Act, 1985.
• The accused argued that the Panch witnesses presented by the prosecution didn't support their case.
  • The prosecution, however, argued that bail couldn't be granted because the Investigation Officer hadn't been examined as a witness.
• The court reviewed the evidence and found that the witnesses didn't support the prosecution's case.
  • They also rejected the idea of considering the Investigation Officer as a witness.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• The Court granted bail, recognizing that the prolonged incarceration due to undue trial delays contradicts the essence of Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty.
• The Court stated that Section 37 of the NDPS Act, 1985, doesn't prevent bail from being granted when there's an unjustified trial delay.
  • If the trial takes too long without a reasonable cause, it violates the fundamental right to liberty.
  • Bail allowed under specific conditions, like regularly attending the trial. Failure to comply with these conditions could lead to consequences decided by the trial court.

What is the NDPS Act?

• The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, 1985 Act (NDPS) is an Indian law enacted in 1985.
• It aims of consolidating and amending the laws relating to narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances, and to make stringent provisions for the control and regulation of operations relating to them.
• The act purpose is to combat the illicit trafficking and abuse of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances.
• It outlines various offenses, penalties, and procedures for investigation and trial related to the possession, sale, manufacture, cultivation, and transportation of such substances.
• The NDPS Act also provides for the establishment of authorities responsible for implementing its provisions and for the rehabilitation of addicts.

What is Section 37 of the NDPS Act?

Section 37 deals with offences to be cognizable and non-bailable.

• Cognizability of Offences:
  • Every offense punishable under the NDPS Act is cognizable, meaning the police can make an arrest without a warrant and start an investigation.
• Non-Bailable Offences:
  • Offenses under specific sections (such as sections 19, 24, and 27A) or offenses involving commercial quantity are considered non-bailable.
  • No person accused of such offenses shall be released on bail or their own bond unless certain conditions are met.
• Conditions for Granting Bail:
  • The Public Prosecutor must be given an opportunity to oppose the bail application.
  • If the Public Prosecutor opposes the bail application, the court must be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of the offense and that they are not likely to commit any offense while on bail.
• Additional Limitations on Bail:
  • The limitations specified in clause (b) of subsection (1) are additional to any limitations under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, or any other law regarding granting of bail.

Is Prolonged Incarceration Due to Trial Delays a Violation of Fundamental Right under the Indian Constitution?

• The prolonged incarceration due to delays in the completion of trials can indeed violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India,1950.
• Article 21 guarantees the right to life and personal liberty, stating that no person shall be deprived of their life or personal liberty except according to the procedure established by law.
• Prolonged incarceration without a speedy trial can result in undue hardship, loss of personal liberty, and even psychological trauma for the accused.
• The Supreme Court has consistently held that delays in trials that lead to prolonged incarceration can infringe upon the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 21.

What were the Landmark Judgments Involved in the Case?

• Mohd. Muslim v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2023) and Rabi Prakash v. The State of Odisha (2023)
  • The Supreme Court addressed bail applications involving offenses under the NDPS Act.
  • The Court established that when an accused faces prolonged incarceration, conditional liberty can supersede the statutory restrictions outlined in Section 37 of the Act.
  • This implies that if a trial experiences undue delay, it can serve as a valid ground for granting bail to the accused, despite the stringent provisions of Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act 1985.