As per Section 37 NDPS Act, the Court can grant bail to the accused person only when it is satisfied that 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.
A division bench of Justices S Ravindra Bhat and Dipankar Dutta held that laws which impose stringent conditions for grant of bail, may be necessary in public interest; yet, if trials are not concluded in time, the injustice wrecked on the individual is immeasurable.
“Grant of bail on ground of undue delay in trial, cannot be said to be fettered by Section 37 of the Act, given the imperative of Section 436A (which requires inter alia the accused to be enlarged on bail if the trial is not concluded within specified period) which is applicable to offences under the NDPS Act too,” the Court held.
Importantly, the Court said that a plain and literal interpretation of the conditions under Section 37 i.e., the Court should be satisfied that the accused is not guilty and would not commit any offence, would effectively make grant of bail impossible
Therefore, the only manner in which such special conditions as enacted under Section 37 can be considered within constitutional parameters is where the court is reasonably satisfied on a prima facie look at the material on record (whenever the bail application is made) that the accused is not guilty, the Court underscored.
“Any other interpretation, would result in complete denial of the bail to a person accused of offences such as those enacted under Section 37 of the NDPS Act,” the order said.
The Court, therefore, granted bail to the appellant after noting that he had spent over seven years in jail in an NDPS case and trial was proceeding at snail’s pace.
“The progress of the trial has been at a snail’s pace: 30 witnesses have been examined, whereas 34 more have to be examined,” the Court noted.
Source: Barandbench
