TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (11) TMI 1078
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....me direction" was issued. It is further contended that inordinate delay in trial may entitle the under trials to apply for bail only after compliance of requirements under Section 436A of the Code of Criminal Procedure and not otherwise. Right of bail to an under-trial flows from Article 21 of the Constitution of India which frowns upon unnecessary and prolonged detention pending judicial adjudication of guilt. Nonetheless, discretion to grant bail to an accused is circumscribed by the "procedure established by law". NDPS Act was promulgated essentially for detection, investigation and prosecution of offences under Narcotic Psychotropic Act. In view of the grave nature of offences involving trafficking of narcotics in commercial quantities, the law engrafts strict restrictions under Section 37 of the Act on the Court's discretion to grant bail. Section 37 of the Act reads as follows:- "37. Offences to be cognizable and non-bailable.- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974)- (a) every offence punishable under this Act shall be cognizable; (b)no person accused of an offence punishable for offenc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....icitor General for the following reasons. The Apex Court while dealing with the issue of grant of bail on the score of inordinate delay in disposal of trials, had taken into consideration the statutory restrictions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act and held as follows : "15. ...we are conscious of the statutory provisions finding place in Section 37 of the Act, prescribing the conditions which have to be satisfied before a person accused of an offence under the Act can be released. Indeed we have averted to this Section in the earlier part of the judgement. We have also kept in mind the interpretation placed on a similar provision in Section 20 of the TADA Act by the Constitution Bench in Kartar Singh vs. State of Punjab. Despite this provision we have directed as above mainly at the call of Article 21 as the right to speedy trial may even require in some cases quashing of a criminal proceeding altogether, as held by a constitution Bench of this Court, A.R.Antulay vs. R.S. Nayek, released on bail, which can be taken to be embedded in the right of speedy trial, may in some cases be the demand of Article 21. As we have not felt inclined to accept the extreme submission of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the said amount with two sureties for like amount. If the maximum fine is not prescribed bail shall be to the satisfaction of the Special Judge concerned with two sureties for like amount. (ii) Where the undertrial accused is charged with an offence(s) under the Act providing for punishment exceeding five years and fine, such an undertrial shall be released on bail on the term set out in (i) above provided that his bail amount shall in no case be less than Rs 50,000 with two sureties for like amount. (iii) Where the undertrial accused is charged with an offence(s) under the Act punishable with minimum imprisonment of ten years and a minimum fine of Rupees one lakh, such an undertrial shall be released on bail if he has been in jail for not less than five years provided he furnishes bail in the sum of Rupees one lakh with two sureties for like amount. (iv) Where an undertrial accused is charged for the commission of an offence punishable under Sections 31 and 31-A of the Act, such an undertrial shall not be entitled to be released on bail by virtue of this order". It is argued that such directions were intended to operate as an "one time measure" in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....led to knock the door of the Apex Court. We are conscious that delay may also be caused by an accused and it is nobody's case that such a litigant can derive benefit out of his own wrong. However, the principle of apportionment of responsibility in the matter of delay in trial must be counteracted in the backdrop of the constitutional duty of the State to ensure effective and speedy prosecution. The Constitution assures every individual the precious right of personal liberty and when it is forfeited by the State to ensure administration of criminal justice a heavy corresponding duty is cast on it to ensure speedy conclusion of trial minimizing under trial detention. Directives in Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee (Supra) are to be viewed from such perspective. These directions cannot be whittled down or restricted by the operation of Section 436 A Cr.P.C. The said provision is an expression of similar anxiety of the legislature to minimize under trial detention. The directives of the Apex Court relating to bail and section 436A operate in the same field and are supplementary to one another. To read one in derogative of the other would amount to restricting the right of under-tri....