High Court · 2025

4. It has been argued by learned counsel for applicant that applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case. There is no independent witness of alleged recovery of ganja and that provisions of section 50 NDPS Act have not been complied with. It is further submitted that second bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court vide order dated 17.11.2020 and that applicant is in jail since 12.03.2019 and thus, he has already undergone detention of about 6 years. It was pointed out that the trial is still at the stage of prosecution evidence and only five witnesses have been examined so far and thus, trial of the case is likely to take sufficient long time. It was submitted that applicant has no criminal history and that in case he is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

5. Learned counsel appearing for N.C.B. has opposed the bail application and submitted that the case relates to recovery of 240.49 kg ganja from the truck, which was being driven by the applicant. The provisions of Section 50 of N.D.P.S. Act are not attracted in this matter. It was submitted that mere period of custody of accused cannot be a ground to grant bail to an accused. In this connection, learned counsel has placed reliance upon the case of Narcotics Control Bureau Vs. Mohit Aggarwal, 2022 0 Supreme (SC) 619. It was submitted that in view of facts of the matter, the applicant is not entitled for bail.

6. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record.

7. Perusal of record shows that the matter relates to recovery of 240.49 Kg ganja, which was allegedly made from the truck which was being driven by applicant. The first bail application of applicant was rejected by this Court vide order dated 31.07.2019 and second bail application of applicant was rejected by this Court vide order dated 17.11.2020. In the trial, five witnesses have been examined so far.

8. In case of Sheikh Javed Iqbal @ Asfhfaq Ansari @ Javed Ansari V State of U.P. (CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2790 OF 2024), decided on 18.07.2024, the Apex Court held: ‘‘32. This Court has, time and again, emphasized that right to life and personal liberty enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India is overarching and sacrosanct. A constitutional court cannot be restrained from granting bail to an accused on account of restrictive statutory provisions in a penal statute if it finds that the right of the accused-undertrial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India has been infringed. In that event, such statutory restrictions would not come in the way. Even in the case of interpretation of a penal statute, howsoever stringent it may be, a constitutional court has to lean in favour of constitutionalism and the rule of law of which liberty is an intrinsic part. In the given facts of a particular case, a constitutional court may decline to grant bail. But it would be very wrong to say that under a particular statute, bail cannot be granted. It would run counter to the very grain of our constitutional jurisprudence. In any view of the matter, K.A. Najeeb (supra) being rendered by a three Judge Bench is binding on a Bench of two Judges like us.’’.

9. In case of Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation reported in (2022) 10 SCC 51, the Apex Court observed that prolonged incarceration and inordinate delay engaged the attention of the court, which considered the correct approach towards bail, with respect to several enactments, including Section 37 NDPS Act. The Hon’ble Court held as under: “We do not wish to deal with individual enactments as each special Act has got an objective behind it, followed by the rigour imposed. The general principle governing delay would apply to these categories also. To make it clear, the provision contained in Section 436-A of the Code would apply to the Special Acts also in the absence of any specific provision. For example, the rigour as provided under Section 37 of the NDPS Act would not come in the way in such a case as we are dealing with the liberty of a person. We do feel that more the rigour, the quicker the adjudication ought to be. After all, in these types of cases number of witnesses would be very less and there may not be any justification for prolonging the trial. Perhaps there is a need to comply with the directions of this Court to expedite the process and also a stricter compliance of Section 309 of the Code.”

10. Recently in case of Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh V State of Maharashtra and Anr. MANU/SC/0609/2024, it was observed that speedy trial is fundamental right of the accused. It is the responsibility of the State / prosecuting agency to ensure the speedy trial. It is expected that the trial should be concluded within a reasonable time. Article 21 of the Constitution applies irrespective of the nature of the crime. The Hon’ble Apex Court held: ‘‘19, If the State or any prosecuting agency including the court concerned has no wherewithal to provide or protect the fundamental right of an accused to have a speedy trial as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution then the State or any other prosecuting agency should not oppose the plea for bail on the ground that the crime committed is serious. Article 21 of the Constitution applies irrespective of the nature of the crime. 20, We may hasten to add that the petitioner is still an accused; not a convict. The over-arching postulate of criminal jurisprudence that an accused is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty cannot be brushed aside lightly, howsoever stringent the penal law may be. 21, We are convinced that the manner in which the prosecuting agency as well as the Court have proceeded, the right of the accused to have a speedy trial could be said to have been infringed thereby violating Article 21 of the Constitution’’

11. In the instant matter, as stated above, the applicant is in jail since 12.03.2019 and thus, he has undergone detention of about of six years. The applicant has no criminal history. So far statement of five witnesses have been recorded and some of the witnesses are yet to be examined. It appears from order-sheet of the trial Court that trial has been delayed mainly because on so many dates no witness was produced by the prosecuting agency. The case relied by learned counsel for the is on different footing and in attending facts it would have no application. It appears that the trial of case would take sufficient long period.

12. Considering aforesaid facts, particularly the period of detention, stage of trial and aforesaid position of law, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the matter, a case for bail is made out.

13. The bail application is allowed.

14. Let the applicant - Kuldeep Singh involved in aforesaid case be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond of heavy amount and two local sureties of like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions: i. The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial. ii. The applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate any of the prosecution witness. iii. The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless his personal presence is exempted. iv. The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected. v. The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

15. In case of breach of any of the above condition, the Court concerned shall be at liberty to cancel bail of applicant in accordance with law. Order Date :- 7.3.2025 RKM RAJESH KUMAR MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

4. It has been argued by learned counsel for applicant that applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case. There is no independent witness of alleged recovery of ganja and that provisions of section 50 NDPS Act have not been complied with. It is further submitted that second bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court vide order dated 17.11.2020 and that applicant is in jail since 12.03.2019 and thus, he has already undergone detention of about 6 years. It was pointed out that the trial is still at the stage of prosecution evidence and only five witnesses have been examined so far and thus, trial of the case is likely to take sufficient long time. It was submitted that applicant has no criminal history and that in case he is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

5. Learned counsel appearing for N.C.B. has opposed the bail application and submitted that the case relates to recovery of 240.49 kg ganja from the truck, which was being driven by the applicant. The provisions of Section 50 of N.D.P.S. Act are not attracted in this matter. It was submitted that mere period of custody of accused cannot be a ground to grant bail to an accused. In this connection, learned counsel has placed reliance upon the case of Narcotics Control Bureau Vs. Mohit Aggarwal, 2022 0 Supreme (SC) 619. It was submitted that in view of facts of the matter, the applicant is not entitled for bail.

6. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record.

7. Perusal of record shows that the matter relates to recovery of 240.49 Kg ganja, which was allegedly made from the truck which was being driven by applicant. The first bail application of applicant was rejected by this Court vide order dated 31.07.2019 and second bail application of applicant was rejected by this Court vide order dated 17.11.2020. In the trial, five witnesses have been examined so far.

8. In case of Sheikh Javed Iqbal @ Asfhfaq Ansari @ Javed Ansari V State of U.P. (CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2790 OF 2024), decided on 18.07.2024, the Apex Court held: ‘‘32. This Court has, time and again, emphasized that right to life and personal liberty enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India is overarching and sacrosanct. A constitutional court cannot be restrained from granting bail to an accused on account of restrictive statutory provisions in a penal statute if it finds that the right of the accused-undertrial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India has been infringed. In that event, such statutory restrictions would not come in the way. Even in the case of interpretation of a penal statute, howsoever stringent it may be, a constitutional court has to lean in favour of constitutionalism and the rule of law of which liberty is an intrinsic part. In the given facts of a particular case, a constitutional court may decline to grant bail. But it would be very wrong to say that under a particular statute, bail cannot be granted. It would run counter to the very grain of our constitutional jurisprudence. In any view of the matter, K.A. Najeeb (supra) being rendered by a three Judge Bench is binding on a Bench of two Judges like us.’’.

9. In case of Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation reported in (2022) 10 SCC 51, the Apex Court observed that prolonged incarceration and inordinate delay engaged the attention of the court, which considered the correct approach towards bail, with respect to several enactments, including Section 37 NDPS Act. The Hon’ble Court held as under: “We do not wish to deal with individual enactments as each special Act has got an objective behind it, followed by the rigour imposed. The general principle governing delay would apply to these categories also. To make it clear, the provision contained in Section 436-A of the Code would apply to the Special Acts also in the absence of any specific provision. For example, the rigour as provided under Section 37 of the NDPS Act would not come in the way in such a case as we are dealing with the liberty of a person. We do feel that more the rigour, the quicker the adjudication ought to be. After all, in these types of cases number of witnesses would be very less and there may not be any justification for prolonging the trial. Perhaps there is a need to comply with the directions of this Court to expedite the process and also a stricter compliance of Section 309 of the Code.”

10. Recently in case of Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh V State of Maharashtra and Anr. MANU/SC/0609/2024, it was observed that speedy trial is fundamental right of the accused. It is the responsibility of the State / prosecuting agency to ensure the speedy trial. It is expected that the trial should be concluded within a reasonable time. Article 21 of the Constitution applies irrespective of the nature of the crime. The Hon’ble Apex Court held: ‘‘19, If the State or any prosecuting agency including the court concerned has no wherewithal to provide or protect the fundamental right of an accused to have a speedy trial as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution then the State or any other prosecuting agency should not oppose the plea for bail on the ground that the crime committed is serious. Article 21 of the Constitution applies irrespective of the nature of the crime. 20, We may hasten to add that the petitioner is still an accused; not a convict. The over-arching postulate of criminal jurisprudence that an accused is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty cannot be brushed aside lightly, howsoever stringent the penal law may be. 21, We are convinced that the manner in which the prosecuting agency as well as the Court have proceeded, the right of the accused to have a speedy trial could be said to have been infringed thereby violating Article 21 of the Constitution’’

11. In the instant matter, as stated above, the applicant is in jail since 12.03.2019 and thus, he has undergone detention of about of six years. The applicant has no criminal history. So far statement of five witnesses have been recorded and some of the witnesses are yet to be examined. It appears from order-sheet of the trial Court that trial has been delayed mainly because on so many dates no witness was produced by the prosecuting agency. The case relied by learned counsel for the is on different footing and in attending facts it would have no application. It appears that the trial of case would take sufficient long period.

12. Considering aforesaid facts, particularly the period of detention, stage of trial and aforesaid position of law, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the matter, a case for bail is made out.

13. The bail application is allowed.

14. Let the applicant - Kuldeep Singh involved in aforesaid case be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond of heavy amount and two local sureties of like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions: i. The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial. ii. The applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate any of the prosecution witness. iii. The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless his personal presence is exempted. iv. The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected. v. The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

15. In case of breach of any of the above condition, the Court concerned shall be at liberty to cancel bail of applicant in accordance with law. Order Date :- 7.3.2025 RKM RAJESH KUMAR MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad