Right to speedy trial one of objectives of NDPS Act: Punjab and Haryana High Court

Tribune News Service

Saurabh Malik

Chandigarh, November 17

In a significant judgment liable to ensure expeditious disposal of drug cases, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has made it clear that the right to speedy trial is one of the objectives of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act. Justice Pankaj Jain of the High Court asserted it was, rather, one of the checks and balances provided under the Act.

Justice Jain asserted Section 36 of the Act recognised the need for speedy trial. “The provision contained in Section 36, providing for the constitution of Special Courts, is a mean to achieve the end objective of speedy trial.”

Justice Jain was hearing a petition for grant of regular bail to an accused in a case registered under the provisions of the NDPS Act. Appearing before the Bench, his counsel contended the petitioner had stayed in custody for approximately three years.

The counsel also submitted that the accused had a right to speedy trial guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. It stood recognised under the provisions of the NDPS Act. Section 37 of the Act, containing bar to bail, in such a situation was required to be read as subservient to the fundamental right of the petitioner guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.

Referring to a plethora of Supreme Court judgments, Justice Jain asserted it was only with an objective to synthesise the right to speedy trial and the rigours of Section 37 that the apex court in its verdicts granted the concession of regular bail to the undertrials solely on the basis of long incarceration suffered owing to delay in trial.

Section 37 makes it clear that the severity or strictness in granting bail was applicable to offences involving commercial quantity. It indicates that no person accused of an offence punishable under this law “shall be released on bail or on his own bond unless — the public prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the application for such release and where the public prosecutor opposes the application, the court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.”

Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, Justice Jain added the petitioner had already suffered prolonged incarceration of about three years. No other case under the provisions of NDPS Act was registered against the petitioner. In all, 18 witnesses were cited. As such, the trial was expected to take a long time and was not going to conclude in near future. Justice Jain also directed his release on bail, subject to certain conditions.

About The Author

Tribune News Service

The Tribune News Service brings you the latest news, analysis and insights from the region, India and around the world. Follow the Tribune News Service for a wide-ranging coverage of events as they unfold, with perspective and clarity.