Prolonged incarceration and hostile independent witnesses justify bail despite Section 37 NDPS Act restrictions.

The applicant, Viru, was arrested on November 16, 2024, in connection with Crime No. 669 of 2024 at Police Station Alot, District Ratlam, for offenses under Sections 8/15 and 29 of the NDPS Act.

The prosecution alleged that a police raid led to the recovery of 57.900 kg of poppy straw from the joint possession of the applicant and co-accused Pradhan Singh.

The applicant has been in judicial custody since his arrest.

During the trial, two independent seizure witnesses (PW1 and PW2) were examined but did not support the prosecution’s case.

Only two out of nineteen enlisted witnesses have been examined to date.

The applicant moved the High Court for bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, citing prolonged incarceration and the absence of criminal antecedents.

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to grant of bail under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, notwithstanding the statutory rigors of Section 37(1)(b) of the NDPS Act, in light of prolonged pre-trial detention.

2. Whether the continued incarceration of the applicant violates the fundamental right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

The Court primarily considered Section 483 of the BNSS regarding bail and Sections 8, 15, 29, and 37 of the NDPS Act concerning narcotic offenses and bail restrictions.

It relied on the constitutional principle that Article 21 of the Constitution of India, guaranteeing the right to life and liberty, is sacrosanct and overarching.

The Court cited Sheikh Javed Iqbal @ Ashfaq Ansari @ Javed Ansari v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2024 INSC 534) and Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb (2021) to establish that constitutional courts may grant bail despite restrictive statutory provisions if an accused's rights are infringed.

Furthermore, it applied the ratio from Ankur Chaudhary v. State of Madhya Pradesh (SLP Crl. No. 4648/2024), which held that conditional liberty may override the embargo of Section 37(1)(b) of the NDPS Act if the trial is not concluded within a reasonable time.

The Court observed that the applicant has been incarcerated for approximately one year and four months with no prior criminal record.

It noted that the trial’s pace was significantly slow, with only two of nineteen witnesses examined, and that the independent seizure witnesses had turned hostile.

The Court reasoned that while Section 37 of the NDPS Act creates a statutory bar against bail, this restriction must yield to the fundamental right to a speedy trial and liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution when trial conclusion is not foreseeable in the near future.

The Court found that the contentions regarding false implication and lack of conscious possession possessed prima facie merit and required determination during the trial.

Consequently, it determined there was no compelling reason to continue the applicant's prolonged incarceration.

The Court held that the interdict of Section 37(1)(b) of the NDPS Act would not apply in this instance due to the infringement of the right to a speedy trial.

The applicant was ordered to be released upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000/- with one solvent surety of the same amount, subject to conditions including regular attendance at trial and refraining from tampering with evidence or committing further offenses.