In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court has emphasized the importance of an individual's right to liberty and held that an accused cannot be held indefinitely under the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act. The apex court's decision came while considering the bail plea of a man who had been incarcerated for ten years in Odisha under charges of possessing commercial quantities of narcotics.
The bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and Dipankar Datta underscored that prolonged incarceration without the conclusion of a trial infringes upon the fundamental right to life and personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. The court stated that the statutory embargo imposed under Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act must yield conditional liberty in the given circumstances of the case. Moreover, the period of imprisonment of the accused was deemed relevant by the court.
The NDPS Act places the burden of disproving the legal presumption of guilt on the accused during the trial, deviating from the general legal principle of presumption of innocence. Section 37 of the Act further states that an accused shall not be granted bail unless the prosecutor has an opportunity to oppose it, and the court is satisfied that there are grounds to believe that the accused is not guilty.
The Supreme Court has consistently affirmed the stringent conditions set forth in Sections 35 and 37 of the NDPS Act, while also emphasizing that investigating officers must adhere to all procedural requirements under the Act.
In this particular case, the Orissa High Court denied the accused's bail plea, citing the stringent provisions of the NDPS Act. However, the Supreme Court bench noted that the personal liberty of an individual should take precedence when the conclusion of the trial seems distant. The court observed that the accused had already spent over three and a half years in custody, while only one out of the 19 witnesses had testified during this period.
Considering the prolonged duration of the trial, the Supreme Court granted bail to the accused, imposing strict conditions to ensure that the relief granted does not hinder the progress or outcome of the trial.
This ruling reinforces the Supreme Court's authority to grant bail, even under stringent laws, when it is unlikely that the trial will be concluded expeditiously. The court's decisions have consistently emphasized that an accused is entitled to bail after enduring a significant period of incarceration without the prospect of a prompt trial.
In February 2021, the Supreme Court granted bail to KA Najeeb, who was facing trial in Kerala under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act. The court acknowledged that bail should be granted when a timely trial is not feasible and the accused has already endured substantial imprisonment.
In the case of P. Chidambaram vs. Directorate of Enforcement (2020), the Supreme Court clarified that economic offences cannot be treated as a single category for the purpose of denying bail. The court emphasized that the denial of bail should not be an automatic response in economic offence cases, as there is no specific bar created by the legislature or the bail jurisprudence.
This ruling by the Supreme Court reaffirms the importance of safeguarding the fundamental right to liberty and ensures that individuals are not subjected to indefinite incarceration without a timely trial. It sets a significant precedent for future cases involving the NDPS Act and highlights the court's commitment to upholding constitutional rights.
Source: Link
Picture Source :
