Please Log in / Register to access the full text of this judgment and the entire database
(2022) Law Today Live Doc. Id. 17256
Decided on: 28.11.2022
For Petitioner(s):
Mr. Bipin Bihari Singh, Adv. Mr. Abhishek Pandey, Adv. Mr. Ajay Kumar singh, Adv. Mr. Mukul Deve Mishra, Adv. Mr. Somanatha Padhan, Adv. Mr. Ashok Anand, AOR
For Respondent(s):
Mr. Ravinder Singh, Adv. Ms. Raveesha Gupta, Adv. Ms. Mantika Haryani, Adv. Mr. Sanjeev Kaushik, Adv. Mr. Shreyas Awasthi, Adv. Mr. Devvrat Singh, Adv. Ms. Astha Sharma, AOR
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 20(b)(ii)(C), 23(c), 37 – Constitution of India, Article 21 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- NDPS case – Right to expeditious trial -- Commercial quantity – Regular bail -- High Court declined to grant bail on the ground that the quantity seized was a commercial quantity and the rigours of Section 37 would preclude the grant of bail -- There has been no progress in the trial -- Appellant is in custody for over four years -- A period of five years would be completed in February 2023 -- Having due regard to the right of the appellant to an expeditious trial within the ambit of Article 21, the appellant should be released on bail -- Appellant ordered to be released on bail.
(Para 5, 8-10)
ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2. FIR No 90/2018 has been registered against the appellant at P S New Jalpaiguri, West Bengal for alleged offences under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) read with Section 23(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act 1985.
3. The appellant is in custody since 13 February 2018. The charge-sheet was submitted on 25 July 2018. Charges have been framed on 30 November 2018.
4. On 11 December 2019, the High Court directed the trial Judge to expedite the trial and to preferably conclude it within a period of one year. Despite this, the trial has not been concluded.
5. By the impugned order dated 5 August 2021, the High Court declined to grant bail on the ground that the quantity which was seized was a commercial quantity and the rigours of Section 37 would preclude the grant of bail.
6. Notice was issued in these proceedings on 23 September 2022. This Court recorded the submission of the appellant that there has been no progress in the trial and not even a single witness has been examined. In paragraph 3 of the order of this Court dated 23 September 2022, the word “she” is a typographic error and the same be read as “he”.
7. Heard counsel for the appellant and counsel appearing on behalf of the State.
8. There has been no progress in the trial. The appellant is in custody for over four years. A period of five years would be completed in February 2023. The maximum term of imprisonment for the offences alleged is ten years.
9. In this view of the matter and since there has been no progress in the trial, we are of the considered view that having due regard to the right of the appellant to an expeditious trial within the ambit of Article 21, the appellant should be released on bail.
10. We accordingly order and direct that the appellant be released on bail subject to such terms and conditions as may be imposed by the trial court.
11. The appeal is accordingly disposed of
12. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
Appeal allowed.
********