Trial Court Cannot Mechanically Halt NDPS Trial Because Supplementary Complaint Against Co-Accused Is Pending: J&K&L High Court

The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has held that a trial court cannot mechanically defer the conclusion of an NDPS trial merely because a supplementary complaint has subsequently been filed against a co-accused.The Court observed that where the prosecution evidence against an accused has already concluded, the trial court must independently determine whether the accused should be tried jointly with the newly arraigned accused or whether the proceedings deserve to be segregated and concluded separately.Rejecting a bail plea filed by an accused who has remained in custody for nearly five years, the High Court nevertheless directed the trial court to re-examine, within fifteen days, its decision to keep the trial in abeyance and held that if separate trial is warranted, there exists no legal impediment to concluding the main case.A Bench of Justice Rajnesh Oswal made the observations while deciding a bail application filed by an accused facing trial under Sections 8 and 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. The Court observed, "... There exists no legal impediment preventing the trial Court from proceeding with the main case and adjudicating the same in accordance with law."According to the prosecution, approximately 5.4 kilograms of charas, a commercial quantity, were recovered from a shoulder bag allegedly carried by the petitioner while travelling from Anantnag to Surat. Following investigation, a complaint was filed and charges under Sections 8 and 20 of the NDPS Act were framed against him.The prosecution evidence was completed on 6 November 2024 and the petitioner's statement under Section 313 CrPC was recorded on 9 December 2024. The matter had reached the stage of final arguments. However, before arguments could conclude, the prosecution informed the trial court that a supplementary complaint had been filed against an alleged supplier, Ghulam Mohiuddin Shah.Consequently, the trial court deferred proceedings in the petitioner's case pending the supplementary proceedings. The petitioner sought bail contending that he had already spent nearly five years in custody and that the indefinite postponement of final arguments violated his constitutional right to a speedy trial. It was also argued that the trial, insofar as the petitioner was concerned, had substantially concluded and there was no justification for keeping him incarcerated because of proceedings initiated subsequently against another accused.The NCB opposed the plea, contending that commercial quantity had been recovered from the petitioner and that the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act barred grant of bail. Reliance was placed upon Narcotics Control Bureau v. Mohit Aggarwal, wherein the Supreme Court held that prolonged custody alone cannot justify bail in commercial quantity cases.Court's Observations:The High Court noted that the supplementary complaint filed against the co-accused did not contain any fresh allegations against the petitioner. Rather, even in the original complaint, the prosecution had alleged that the petitioner had procured the contraband from the co-accused.The Court further found it surprising that although the supplementary complaint had been filed in March 2025, the trial court had not even concluded arguments on charge or discharge against the co-accused.The Bench observed that after completion of prosecution evidence and recording of the accused's statement, the trial court had mechanically deferred the proceedings merely on the basis of submissions made by counsel, without passing any reasoned judicial determination as to whether such deferment was legally justified.The Court observed, "The learned trial court without formally adjudicating whether a deferment of proceedings was legally warranted, deferred the case against the petitioner in a mechanical manner."Referring extensively to the Supreme Court decision in Sukhpal Singh Khaira v. State of Punjab (2022) concerning the exercise of powers under Section 319 CrPC, the Court held that even where an additional accused is summoned, the trial court must first determine whether the newly summoned accused should be tried jointly or separately. If a separate trial is considered appropriate, the original trial can proceed to its logical conclusion without waiting for the subsequent proceedings.Applying those principles, the High Court held that the same rationale governed cases involving supplementary complaints. The Court observed, "Even in instances where an additional accused is summoned, the trial Court must determine whether such accused is to be tried jointly or separately. Should the Court determine that a separate trial is necessitated, it must proceed with the main case independently."The Court also stressed that proceedings under the NDPS Act require expeditious disposal because of the stringent punishments prescribed and the restrictive conditions governing grant of bail under Section 37.While declining to enlarge the...

Trial Court Cannot Mechanically Halt NDPS Trial Because Supplementary Complaint Against Co-Accused Is Pending: J&K&L High Court

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Trial Court Cannot Mechanically Halt NDPS Trial Because Supplementary Complaint Against Co-Accused Is Pending: J&K&L High Court

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers