Regular bail granted for 500kg poppy husk possession after 3 years custody considering speedy trial rights under Section 36 NDPS Act

The Punjab and Haryana HC granted regular bail to a petitioner charged with conscious possession of 500 kilograms of poppy husk without licence under NDPS Act. The petitioner had undergone approximately 3 years of custody. The HC held that prolonged incarceration, absence of other NDPS cases, 18 cited witnesses indicating lengthy trial proceedings, and the right to speedy trial under Section 36 NDPS Act warranted bail. Citing SC precedent in Shariful Islam case, the court noted under-trials suffering incarceration over 1.5 years are entitled to regular bail, balancing speedy trial rights with Section 37 rigors.

---

---

Issues:
Grant of regular bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in a case involving NDPS Act violations.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner filed a petition seeking regular bail in a case registered under Sections 15(c) and 27(a) of the NDPS Act, 1985. The petitioner was found in possession of 500 kilograms of poppy husk without a license. The trial had not progressed significantly, with the petitioner being in custody since November 30, 2019. The petitioner argued for bail based on the right to speedy trial guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, citing lack of progress in the trial and the absence of other cases under the NDPS Act against him.

2. The petitioner's counsel referenced various judgments, including Satnam Singh vs. State of Punjab, where bail was granted to an under-trial after more than 2 years in custody. Additionally, judgments like Shariful Islam @ Sarif vs. The State of West Bengal and Sujit Tiwari vs. State of Gujarat highlighted instances where prolonged incarceration led to bail grants. The petitioner's counsel argued that Section 37 of the NDPS Act should yield to the fundamental right of a speedy trial under Article 21.

3. The State did not contest the petitioner's prolonged custody but mentioned delays in trial proceedings due to the unarrested co-accused and supplementary Challan filings. The Court acknowledged the petitioner's extended incarceration of about 3 years, the absence of other NDPS Act cases against him, and the likelihood of a protracted trial due to numerous witnesses.

4. Referring to precedents such as Shariful Islam @ Sarif's case and Gopal Krishna Patra @ Gopalrusma's case, the Court emphasized the importance of balancing the right to speedy trial under Article 21 with the provisions of the NDPS Act. The Court recognized the need for a speedy trial under Section 36 of the NDPS Act and granted bail to the petitioner considering the prolonged custody period and the unlikelihood of a prompt trial conclusion.

5. The Court imposed specific conditions along with bail, including restrictions on misusing liberty, tampering with evidence, attending trial dates, committing similar offenses, depositing the passport, providing cellphone number to authorities, and avoiding trial delays. Any breach of these conditions could lead to bail cancellation upon prosecution's request.

6. In conclusion, the Court allowed the petition, ordering the petitioner's release on bail upon fulfilling the specified conditions to the satisfaction of the Trial Court/Duty Magistrate.

---