Summary
The Supreme Court granted regular bail to an NDPS accused who had been in custody for over four years and whose co-accused on the same flight had already been granted bail, and directed trial courts to inform accused persons of their right to legal representation and legal aid, and to record that offer, before witnesses are examined.
Issues
- Whether the appellant, accused of NDPS and Customs Act offences involving an alleged commercial quantity, should be released on bail after prolonged custody.
- What trial courts must do where an accused is unrepresented when prosecution witnesses are to be examined.
Held
- Although the contraband allegedly seized was above commercial quantity, the length of the appellant's incarceration (over four years) and the grant of bail by the Court to an identically placed co-accused who travelled on the same flight justified granting bail to the appellant. (¶¶ 3, 4)
- The observations were confined to the question of bail and were not an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. (¶ 9)
- Noting that the appellant had not cross-examined witnesses initially and could do so only after engaging counsel and obtaining leave to re-examine them, the Court held that trial courts in criminal proceedings must inform the accused of the right to legal representation and to legal aid counsel if unable to afford one, and must record the offer, the accused's response and the action taken in their orders before commencing examination of witnesses; this procedure is to be followed scrupulously. (¶¶ 10, 11, 12)
Result
Appeal allowed; High Court order of 24.07.2025 set aside; appellant to be released on bail on stringent conditions fixed by the trial court, surrender of passport and cooperation with the trial; trial court to endeavour to conclude the trial early; order to be communicated to the Chief Justices of all High Courts for instructions to trial courts.