HC flags ‘dire necessity’ of creating special NDPS courts in Punjab, Haryana, Chandigarh

The HC made observations hearing a reference plea in an NDPS case, where one of the questions was whether a prolonged delay in the concluding trial could be a ground for bail when the accused was allegedly found in possession of commercial quantity, easing the bar of satisfying twin condition laid down under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.

Referring to the judgments, including Union of India through Narcotic Control Bureau, Lucknow, versus Md Nawaz Khan, the HC said the Apex Court has explicitly held that as per Section 37, the bail should not be granted to an accused unless the accused was allegedly found in possession of commercial quantity unless he was able to satisfy twin conditions which was the reasonable ground for believing the accused was not guilty of such an offence and that the accused would not commit an offence or was not likely to commit an offence if granted bail.

The HC said the Public Prosecutor has to be imperatively assigned an opportunity to oppose the application for regular bail.

The Bench said the expectations of a speedy trial being made by the accused, may be an over-expectation from the trial Court, especially given the existence of a heavy docket of sub judice cases of various genres.

The Bench said, “If the heavy docket of sub judice litigations of every genre becomes the deterrent for the learned trial Judges concerned, thus ensuring the makings of expeditious trials vis-a-vis the opposite charges drawn vis-a-vis the accused, especially the one relating to the accused concerned allegedly consciously and exclusively possessing the commercial quantity of the relevant narcotic drug(s) and psychotropic substance(s). Therefore, to the considered objective mind of this court, there is also the dire necessity of making Special NDPS Courts in the States of Punjab, Haryana and in the Union Territory, Chandigarh.”

The HC said only the Courts cannot be blamed for delay in trials but the liability needs to be vicariously shared “by the prosecution as well as by the accused”.

In case, the prosecution witnesses are promptly served, the trial would proceed at an expeditious pace, held by the HC.

“Insofar as the official prosecution witnesses are concerned, who may be on account of transfers become positioned at stations rather much distant from the Courts where before whom they are to record their depositions, thereby yet the trial Judges concerned, may choose to record their evidence through video conferencing but with the consent of the learned defence counsel,” the HC stated. The Bench highlighted that the charges in the trial should also be expeditiously framed, and therefore, non-framing of charge should also be grounds for granting bail to the accused in the NDPS cases.