No Point In Prosecution Multiplying Witnesses On One & Same Issue, Says Supreme Court While Granting Bail Due To Trial Delay

The Supreme Court recently released a petitioner on bail in a case under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985(NDPS Act), after finding that he had spent more than three years in undertrial custody, with 159 witnesses left to be examined.

The petitioner has been arrested by the Anti-Narcotic Cell, Worli Unit, under Sections 8(b), 22(c), 25, 27-A and 29 of the NDPS Act, for possessing 2428 kg of Mephedrone.

A bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice KV Viswanathan, in the order passed on January 28, stated that despite the seriousness of the alleged offence, the Court had to exercise discretion in granting bail in an NDPS case because the Trial Court took more than three and a half years to frame charges.

At the same time, the Court wondered why the prosecution had to examine so many witnesses and not examine only important witnesses to establish its case.

"We do not undermine the seriousness of the alleged crime. We are mindful of the fact that the prosecution is for the offence punishable under Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, Act, 1985. At the same time, we should not overlook the fact that the petitioner is in judicial custody as an under-trial prisoner past 3 years and 6 months and prosecution intends to examine as many as 159 witnesses. Examination of 159 witnesses or even 50% of the same is going to take a pretty long time. At times, we wonder why prosecution wants to examine so many witnesses and thereby prolong the trial and delay the same. We have observed in number of orders that the prosecution should examine important witnesses and try to establish its case. There is no point in multiplying the witnesses on one and the same issue."

The Court had issued notice on January 13 and asked the State of Maharashtra's counsel, Advocate Rukmini Bobde, to explain why the NDPS Court has not yet framed charges, given that the petitioner was arrested way back in March 2022.

During the hearing, the petitioner's counsel, Advocate Rizwan Merchant, had submitted that the co-accused persons have been released on bail and the prosecution intends to examine as many as 159 witnesses. He also stated that the Trial Court has cases as old as 10 years pending before it.

When the matter was heard, the Court was informed that the NDPS Court had framed charges on January 16, and the matter had been kept for the compliance of Section 294 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on January 30.

While granting bail, the Court gave liberty to the prosecution to impose any particular bail condition to safeguard its interest. The bench also imposed a bail condition that the petitioner should not leave his town of Ankleshwar, State of Gujarat, except for the dates of attending the Trial Court. He shall also mark his presence on every Sunday at the Ankleshwar City Police Station and surrender his passport before the Trial Court.

Case Details: CHINTAN RAJUBHAI PANSERIYA v. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA|Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.439/2026

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 99

Click Here To Read Order

Appearances: For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rizwan Merchant, Adv. Mrs. Yugandhara Pawar Jha, AOR Mr. Kunal Verma, Adv. Ms. Uma Nemlekar, Adv. Mr. Faisal F.shaikh, Adv. Mr. Omar Shah, Adv. Ms. Swati Mishra, Adv. Ms. Yasha Goyal, Adv.

For Respondent(s) : Ms. Rukhmini Bobde, Adv. Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Adv. Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR Mr. Shrirang B. Varma, Adv. Mr. Amlaan Kumar, Adv. Mr. Jatin Dhamija, Adv. Mr. Vinayak Aren, Adv