The High Court of Punjab and Haryana while granting bail to the petitioner, accused under the NDPS Act observed that deprivation of the right of speedy trial due to carelessness, insensitiveness, malafide or any other reason on the part of police officers is unacceptable and violative of Article 21 and thus even the police officers should also be imparted dedicated training by engaging appropriate faculty, who are experts in the field of Constitutional Law.
Brief Facts:
The petitioner, accused under Sections 21 and 29 of the NDPS Act filed the present petition under Section 439 CrPC seeking bail after he had been in custody for about 3 years, and 7 months.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contended that the petitioner is in custody for about 3 years, 7 months and 4 days and he is not involved in any other case and has clean antecedents. It was further submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and the end result of the same is that the petitioner had to face incarceration for about 3 years, 7 months and 4 days for no fault of his but only because of the fault of the prosecution witnesses. It was further submitted that when there is a long custody, which is not attributable to the accused and the delay has been caused by the prosecution, then Rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India are affected and further contended that long custody itself is a ground for grant of bail notwithstanding the bar contained under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents so far as the custody of the petitioner is concerned, the same is correct and he has filed custody certificate of the petitioner in the Court today and the same is taken on record. He further submitted that the petitioner is in custody for about 3 years, 7 months and 4 days and charges in the present case were framed on 22.12.2021, which is approximately 2 years ago but no prosecution witness has been examined till date.
Observations of the court:
The court noted that charges were framed by the trial Court in 2021, which is almost 2 years ago but not even a single prosecution witness has been examined to date and there was no valid justification for the delay and it was because of this reason that now action is to be taken against the police officials in this regard.
The court referred to the judgment in Satendra Kumar Antil wherein the Supreme Court discussed this serious issue with regard to delay in trial and its effect on the Right to Life of an individual under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and further the judgment in Mohd. Muslim @ Hussain's case wherein the Supreme Court dealt with this issue with regard to delay in trial and long custody of the accused person vis-a-vis the bar contained under Section 37 of the NDPS Act and stated that bar contained under Section 37 of the NDPS Act will not apply to the present petitioner in the light of Article 21 of the Constitution.
Further, the court took serious note of the issue with regard to the non-deposition of prosecution witnesses for a long period of time resulting in the long incarceration and stated that police act and perform its duty as per law but at the same time it is the duty of the Police Administration to have detailed and in-depth knowledge of the Fundamental Rights of the citizens of India, especially under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and it is extremely necessary to sensitize and to give proper learning to the police officers at least on Article 21 of the Constitution of India so that while performing their duties they should be aware of this most precious provision.
Expressing concern over prolonged trials, the Court directed the Director General of Police, Punjab, to establish a systematic schedule for providing education on Fundamental Rights, especially Article 21 of the Constitution of India, to all police officers in the State of Punjab, regardless of their rank and cadre for the purpose of improvement of the criminal justice system and further stated that it would be appreciable if a short notebook etc. is prepared for their guidance and even a short exam can also be made compulsory at least for the ranks up to the level of Deputy Superintendent of Police.
The decision of the Court:
The court allowed the petition and granted bail to the petitioner.
Case Title: Karam Singh Alias Salu vs State of Punjab
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Jasgurpreet Singh Puri
Case No.: CRM-M-45855-2023
Advocate for the Petitioner: Mr. Yajur Sharma
Advocate for the Respondent: Mr. Luvinder Sofat
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
