Supreme Court: Prolonged Incarceration Violates Article 21; Bail Considered Under NDPS Act Despite Bar under Section 37
In a landmark judgment, the Supreme Court of India held that undue delay in the conclusion of a trial violates the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. Consequently, bail can be granted to the accused under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, even if the stringent conditions under Section 37 are not met.
The Ruling
The bench, consisting of Justices JK Maheshwari and KV Viswanathan, observed:
“It is to observe that failure to conclude the trial within a reasonable time resulting in prolonged incarceration militates against the precious fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, and as such, conditional liberty overriding the statutory embargo created under Section 37(1)(b) of the NDPS Act may, in such circumstances, be considered.”
Understanding Section 37 of the NDPS Act
Section 37 of the NDPS Act imposes stringent conditions for granting bail, requiring that the accused must demonstrate a reasonable ground for believing they are not guilty of the offense and that they are not likely to commit an offense if granted bail.
Case Background
In this case, the accused had been in custody for over two years for offenses under Section 8 read with Sections 22 and 29 of the NDPS Act, with the trial remaining incomplete. The accused argued that the Panch witness did not support the prosecution’s case. Despite the prosecution’s objection, the court noted that the investigation officer’s testimony as a Panch witness was not required.
Legal Precedents and Implications
This decision builds on previous rulings, such as Mohd. Muslim v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Rabi Prakash V. The State of Odisha, where the Supreme Court held that prolonged incarceration could justify granting bail despite Section 37’s stringent conditions.
The Supreme Court’s ruling underscores the importance of concluding trials promptly to avoid infringing on an individual’s fundamental rights. The Court granted bail, emphasizing that prolonged incarceration due to trial delays contradicts Article 21’s guarantee of the right to life and personal liberty.
Legal Representation
Counsels for Petitioner(s):
- Mr. Sidharth Dave, Sr. Adv.
- Ms. Akriti, Adv.
- Mr. Rajesh Ranjan, Adv.
- Mr. Adil Vasudeva, Adv.
- Mr. Prateek Yadav, AOR
Counsels for Respondent(s):
- Mr. Pashupathi Nath Razdan, AOR
- Mr. Mirza Kayesh Begg, Adv.
- Ms. Maitreyee Jagat Joshi, Adv.
- Mr. Astik Gupta, Adv.
- Ms. Akanksha Tomar, Adv.
- Mr. Argha Roy, Adv.
- Ms. Ojaswini Gupta, Adv.
- Ms. Ruby, Adv.
Case Title
Case Title: ANKUR CHAUDHARY VERSUS STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH, SLP(Crl) No. 004648 / 2024
For a detailed analysis and to read/download the full order, click here.
