Right To Speedy Trial Cannot Displace Conditions For Bail Under S 37 NDPS Act : Supreme Court
The Supreme Court has held that the right to speedy trial under Article 21 cannot override the stringent statutory requirements for grant of bail under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1987."The right to speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution is undoubtedly a valuable constitutional guarantee; but in the context of a special statute such as the NDPS Act dealing...
The Supreme Court has held that the right to speedy trial under Article 21 cannot override the stringent statutory requirements for grant of bail under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1987.
"The right to speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution is undoubtedly a valuable constitutional guarantee; but in the context of a special statute such as the NDPS Act dealing with commercial quantity, that right has to be read alongside, and not in displacement of, the mandate of Section 37," the Court observed.
A Bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Augustine George Masih set aside bail orders granted by the Punjab and Haryana High Court to two accused persons in a case involving recovery of commercial quantity of heroin, directing them to surrender before the trial court within one week.
Background
The case arose from an FIR registered on January 10, 2024 at Police Station Khalra in Punjab's Tarn Taran district. During a vehicle check at a police barricade, authorities intercepted a car and recovered three packets of heroin weighing a total of 1.465 kilograms, which qualifies as commercial quantity under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.
Charges were framed under Sections 21(c) and 29 of the NDPS Act. The High Court granted regular bail to the accused persons mainly on the ground that they had remained in custody for more than two years, only two out of twenty-four prosecution witnesses had been examined, and continued incarceration would violate their right to speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Supreme Court Analyiss
The Supreme Court held that in cases involving commercial quantity of contraband, the twin conditions under Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act are mandatory and must be satisfied before bail can be granted.
As per Section 37, the grant of bail requires the court to record satisfaction of the following twin conditions that:
(i) There are reasonable grounds to believe that the accused is not guilty of the offence
(ii) The accused is not likely to commit any offence while on bail
Failure to record such satisfaction renders the bail order legally unsustainable. Reference was made to the judgments in Narcotics Control Bureau v. Kashif, State of Meghalaya v. Lalrintluanga Sailo and Another etc.
Reference was also made to Parwinder Singh v. State of Punjab where the Supreme Court observed, having regard to the drug menace in the State of Punjab, the Courts ought to be highly circumspect while granting bail in such cases.
Criticising the High Court's order, the Supreme Court observed :
"The impugned order, on its own showing, does not record the satisfaction mandated under Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act. Far from recording such satisfaction, the High Court has gone on to observe that 'the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act can be diluted bearing in mind the right to a speedy trial.' Such an approach is plainly contrary to the settled law aid down by this Court and deserves to be set aside on this ground alone."
Headnote
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985; Section 37(1)(b)(ii) — Grant of Bail — Commercial Quantity — Twin Conditions Mandatory — Right to Speedy Trial under Article 21 cannot blindly dilute statutory rigors - The recording of satisfaction on the twin conditions under Section is a mandatory jurisdictional pre condition and a sine qua non for granting bail in offences involving a commercial quantity - The right to a speedy trial rooted in Article 21 of the Constitution of India is a precious constitutional right, but it must be read harmoniously alongside, and not in displacement or opposition to, the mandate of Section 37 of the NDPS Ac - Prolonged incarceration during the pendency of a trial does not automatically entail relaxation or mechanical dilution of these statutory twin conditions - Orders granting bail without recording such explicit satisfaction stand completely vitiated and cannot be sustained. [Paras 9,10]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 439 (also Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023; Section 483) — Successive Bail Petitions — Material Disclosures and Candour - A court entertaining a successive bail petition under a special statute is strictly bound to refer to the fate of the earlier petition and explicitly record what change in circumstances justifies a fresh consideration - A petitioner invoking the discretionary jurisdiction of the court must approach it with clean hands and full candour - Merely mentioning past case numbers without explicitly disclosing their nature or the factum of their dismissal falls well short of the expected candour and is calculated to obscure rather than illuminate. [Relied on Narcotics Control Bureau v. Kashif, (2024) 11 SCC 372; State of Meghalaya v. Lalrintluanga Sailo and Another, (2024) 15 SCC 36; Union of India v. Ajay Kumar Singh, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 346; Paras 11 – 14]
Case : State of Punjab v Sukhwinder Singh @ Gora
Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 421