SC granted bail to the accused arrested under the Narcotics Act. SC stated that they cannot keep the accused behind the bars under the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Act behind the bars for an indefinite period of time.
Confinement Without Conclusion of Trial Results in Violation of Article 21
The SC has stated that Long Period of Confinement without the conclusion of the Trial will hinder Article 21, which speaks about the Right to Life and Liberty.
It also stated that the person cannot be kept behind the bars for an indefinite period under Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Act just because the law requires the court’s satisfaction that the person is not guilty.
Right of Liberty Precedes the Statutory Embargo – says the Bench:
The Bench consisting of Justice Surya Kant and Justice Dipankar Datta stated that the Right of Liberty supersedes the Statutory embargo imposed under Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Act in relations to the Facts of this case.
The Bench in its order in the Last week stated that the conditional liberty must override the statutory ban under Sec.37(1)(b) of the NDPS act.
The Period of Imprisonment is a Relevant Factor in this case:
And added that the period of imprisonment of the accused shall be considered as a relevant factor in this case.
The SC stated that through a plethora of judicial precedents has stated that art.21 includes the Right of a speedy Trial by widening the scope of the article.
Bail Plea of a Man Who was Imprisoned for 10 Years under NDPS Act:
The present case which came before SC is a bail plea of a man who is jailed in Odisha for a period of 10 years charged under the NDPS Act for possessing commercial quantities of Narcotics. He has spent a minimum of 10 years in jail.
Odisha HC: Denied to grant Bail in this Case:
While the Orrisa High Court has declined the Bail plea by citing the provisions 35 and 37 of the NDPS Act, the SC said that the personal liberty of a citizen outweighs the legal bars against the grant of bail when the time of conclusion of trial is not short.
Testimony of 1 out of 19 Witnesses is Recorded in the last 3.5 Years:
During the Bail application it was also stated that only 1 out of 19 witnesses, statement has been recorded in the last 3.5 years. The accused has already spent 3.5 Years in the Prison was also stated before the bench.
The accused has fulfilled one of the two conditions enshrined in Sec.37 says SC:
Section 35 and 37 of the NDPS Act talks about the stringent conditions which the officer must comply with all the procedural requirements under this act.
Section 35 speaks about the responsibilities of the accused to rebuttal the legal presumption against them. Section 37 stated that no accused shall be released on bail unless the prosecutor is given opportunity to oppose the same and the court must also be satisfied that there are no grounds for them to believe that the accused can be a guilty of the alleged offence.
The SC has stated that the conclusion of trial will take some time and with regard to the two conditions of section 37 the first condition is complied with and the second condition which states about the reasonable grounds to believe that the guilty is not an offender may not be formed in this stage since the accused has already spent three and half years in the prison in its order.
The Bench Granted the Bail Imposing Certain Restrictions:
The Bench of SC proceeded to grant the bail to the accused along with certain strict restrictions to be imposed on the accused which should be followed by the accused so that the relief granted will not hinder the pace or outcome of the trial.
SC has proven its power to grant bail:
In a series of Judgements, the SC has proven its power to grant bail is not being limited.
