Summary
An accused arrested in October 2015 in a ganja trafficking case under Sections 20, 25 and 29 of the NDPS Act, on a co-accused's statement and bank and call records, had spent over seven years in custody while only 30 of 64 prosecution witnesses had been examined; two similarly placed co-accused were on bail. The Delhi High Court refused bail under Section 37. The Supreme Court granted bail: the satisfaction required by Section 37 that the accused is not guilty can only be a prima facie one on a broad reading of the material, since a literal reading would exclude bail altogether and amount to punitive detention; the right to speedy trial under Article 21 and Section 436A CrPC, which applies to NDPS offences, makes prolonged incarceration without progress of trial a ground for bail unfettered by Section 37; and courts must be alive to the harm of prisonisation.
Issues
- How the twin conditions of Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 are to be applied when bail is sought on the ground of prolonged incarceration and delay in trial.
Provisions considered
- Section 37, Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985Bail requires the court to be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing the accused is not guilty and is not likely to offend on bail; this satisfaction is prima facie, on a broad reading of the record without meticulous examination, and does not fetter bail granted for undue delay in trial. (¶¶ 10, 11, 18, 19, 20)
- Section 436A, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973Following Satender Kumar Antil, the provision requiring release of an undertrial who has undergone half the maximum sentence applies to NDPS offences, and the rigour of Section 37 does not stand in the way where the liberty of a person detained for a prolonged period is concerned. (¶¶ 16, 20)
- Article 21, Constitution of IndiaSpeedy trial is part of the right to life and liberty; stringent bail provisions are upheld on the premise that trials will be concluded swiftly, and when trials are delayed release on bail may be the demand of Article 21. (¶¶ 2, 3, 12, 13, 14, 15)
Held
- A plain and literal reading of the conditions in Section 37 would effectively exclude bail altogether and result in punitive and unsanctioned preventive detention; the only constitutionally permissible construction is that the court be reasonably satisfied, on a prima facie look at the material when the application is made, that the accused is not guilty, looking at the material broadly rather than meticulously. (¶¶ 18, 19, 20)
- Laws curtailing bail have been upheld on the condition that investigation and trial are concluded expeditiously; where that does not happen, grant of bail on the ground of undue delay in trial is not fettered by Section 37, given the imperative of Section 436A which applies to NDPS offences. The appellant, arrested at 23 on a co-accused's statement with nothing recovered from him, had been in custody over seven years and four months with the trial at a snail's pace while two similarly placed co-accused were on bail. (¶¶ 13, 16, 17, 20)
- Stringent bail laws may be necessary in the public interest, but if trials are not concluded in time the injustice to the individual is immeasurable; overcrowded jails, the risk of prisonisation, loss of livelihood and family bonds, and the irreparable loss in the event of acquittal require courts to ensure that trials under special laws are taken up and concluded speedily. (¶¶ 21, 22, 23)
Result
Appeal allowed; Delhi High Court order dated 08.09.2022 refusing bail set aside; the appellant directed to be enlarged on bail subject to such conditions as the trial court may impose; no costs.