Introduction:

In a significant ruling, the Gujarat High Court granted regular bail to Mohammad Sadik @ Sajju Mohammad Rafik Gulam Nabi Pathan, an accused under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act), citing his prolonged incarceration of three and a half years and the slow progress of the trial. The single-judge bench of Justice Gita Gopi emphasized that out of 29 listed witnesses, only two had been examined, and the trial court had not set a time-bound schedule for completing the evidence. The Court acknowledged that indefinite pre-trial detention without progress in the case violates the accused’s fundamental right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Given these circumstances, the Court deemed it appropriate to exercise its discretion in favor of granting bail to the accused, subject to strict conditions to ensure compliance with legal proceedings.

Brief Facts:

The case originated from an FIR registered under Sections 8(C), 22(C), and 29 of the NDPS Act. Section 8(C) prohibits the unauthorized production, possession, sale, and transport of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances. Section 22(C) prescribes stringent punishments, including imprisonment ranging from 10 to 20 years and hefty fines for offenses involving commercial quantities of psychotropic substances. Section 29 penalizes conspiracy, abetment, or attempts to commit an offense under the Act, holding all involved parties equally liable. The accused was arrested in August 2021 and had been in judicial custody for over three and a half years. However, the trial had barely progressed, with only two out of 29 witnesses examined, prompting the accused to seek bail on the grounds of excessive pre-trial incarceration and the failure of the prosecution to ensure a timely trial.

Applicant’s Arguments:

The counsel representing the applicant argued that his client had been languishing in jail since August 2021 and that his prolonged detention, without substantial progress in trial, amounted to a violation of his fundamental rights. He emphasized that the right to a speedy trial is enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution, and the undue delay in prosecution justified conditional bail, overriding the statutory restrictions imposed under Section 37(1)(b) of the NDPS Act. The defense relied on various Supreme Court rulings that have held that long incarceration, without trial completion, is unjust and unconstitutional. It was further submitted that NDPS trials are often delayed due to the heavy caseload of Special Courts, which prioritize cases based on urgency, leaving many pending for years. The defense contended that in such a scenario, it would be unfair to continue detaining the accused indefinitely when there was no certainty about the trial’s conclusion. The applicant also assured the court of his willingness to comply with all conditions imposed and not misuse the liberty granted.

State’s Arguments:

The counsel representing the State opposed the bail application, arguing that once a trial has commenced, bail should not be granted merely because of procedural delays. He asserted that all cases before the Special Court deserve equal importance and that granting bail to the accused could set a precedent leading to similar demands from other undertrial prisoners facing serious charges under the NDPS Act. The prosecution maintained that the offense involved commercial quantities of contraband, which carried stringent punishment, and releasing the accused on bail could jeopardize the investigation and trial process. The State further argued that the accused might attempt to tamper with evidence or influence witnesses if granted bail. Given the severity of the charges, the prosecution urged the Court to reject the application and allow the trial to proceed without any special privileges to the accused.

Court’s Observations and Judgment:

After considering the arguments from both sides, the Gujarat High Court analyzed the progress of the trial and the conditions under which the accused was being held. The Court noted that the City Civil Judge, Special Court, had submitted a report stating that only two out of 29 witnesses had been examined and that no time-bound schedule had been prescribed for completing the examination of remaining witnesses. Justice Gita Gopi observed that indefinite incarceration without a clear timeline for trial completion was unjust, particularly when the accused had already spent three and a half years in custody. The Court ruled that the applicant had made out a case for bail due to the prolonged delay in prosecution. However, the bail was granted subject to stringent conditions to ensure that the accused remained available for trial. The Court ordered the applicant to execute a personal bond of ₹15,000, refrain from taking undue advantage of his liberty, avoid actions prejudicial to the prosecution, surrender his passport, and not leave the State of Gujarat without prior court permission. Additionally, the Sessions Judge concerned was directed to take appropriate legal action in case of any violation of these conditions.

Conclusion:

The Gujarat High Court’s decision highlights the importance of balancing the strict provisions of the NDPS Act with the fundamental rights of accused individuals. While the Act imposes stringent conditions on bail for offenses involving commercial quantities of contraband, prolonged incarceration without trial completion raises serious constitutional concerns. By granting bail in this case, the Court reaffirmed that an accused’s right to a speedy trial cannot be disregarded indefinitely. The ruling sets a precedent for ensuring that procedural delays do not result in excessive pre-trial detention, reinforcing the judiciary’s role in upholding constitutional protections while ensuring justice is served.