Inmates become hardened: Punjab and Haryana High Court grants bail to NDPS accused after 23 months custody

Booked under NDPS

• It was alleged that in 2024 a secret information was received that the petitioner along with co-accused were involved in the business of smuggling of heroin at large level.
• It was informed that the accused can be apprehended with a huge quantity of heroin who was at a tourist place on his motorcycle.
• Based on the secret information, a raiding party was formed which reached at the informed place and apprehended two youths including the petitioner.
• The recovered contraband was taken into custody.
• A recovery of 150 grams of heroin was allegedly effected from the petitioner and the co-accused.
• After his arrest the petitioner filed his bail plea before the high court which was dismissed as withdrawn by the court.
• Thereafter he filed his second bail plea before the high court.

Arguments

• The counsel for the petitioner argued that he was in custody for a period of more than 1 year and 11 months.
• The court was further informed that the co-accused have been granted bail and that the trial may take considerable time to conclude as only 6 out of 15 prosecution witnesses were examined so far.
• On the other hand, the counsel for the state opposed the bail plea on the ground that the commercial quantity of the contraband was recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioner and co-accused.
• It was further submitted that it being the successive bail petition was not even maintainable.

Court’s observations

• So far as the maintainability of the petition is concerned, it may be mentioned that an accused has a right to make successive applications for grant of bail, and it is the duty of the court, while entertaining such a subsequent bail application, to consider the reasons and grounds on which the earlier bail petition was rejected.
• The fresh grounds which persuade the court to take a view different from the one taken in the earlier application are also required to be recorded.
• The petitioner has been in continuous custody since March 23, 2024.
• Only 6 out of 15 prosecution witnesses have been examined so far, meaning thereby that there are no chances of conclusion of the trial in near future.
• It is a well settled proposition of law that grant of bail on account of delay in trial and long period of incarceration is to be considered in the light of Section 37 (cognizable and non-bailable offences) of the NDPS Act.
• Reliance can also be placed upon Santosh Pawar v. State of Chhattisgarh and another, which is a recently pronounced verdict of Supreme Court observing that rigors of Section 37 of NDPS Act will not be a bar for considering the case of an accused for bail as it comes with a condition that the prosecution would press for an early completion of trial.
• Similarly in another case of Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2022) prolonged incarceration and inordinate delay engaged the attention of the Supreme Court, which considered the correct approach towards bail, with respect to several enactments, including Section 37 NDPS Act.
• The court expressed the opinion that Section 436A (which requires inter alia the accused to be enlarged on bail if the trial is not concluded within specified periods) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 would apply.
• In view of the above discussion, a case is made out for grant of bail to the petitioner.