Introduction:
The Kerala High Court has recently deliberated on a significant aspect concerning bail under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, particularly in cases where the prosecution delays the trial process. The case titled Shuaib A. S. v State of Kerala and Another revolved around an accused who sought bail after being incarcerated for over two years without the trial being concluded. The case brought into focus the interpretation of Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees personal liberty, and how it interacts with the conditions prescribed under Section 37 of the NDPS Act. The case explored whether the delay in the prosecution’s actions could override the stringent conditions imposed by Section 37(1)(b) of the NDPS Act, which restricts granting bail in cases involving commercial quantities of drugs unless certain conditions are met.
Arguments of the Parties:
The petitioner in this case, Shuaib A. S., had been in custody since January 2022, accused of being involved in the trafficking of MDMA. The prosecution, which had not completed the trial, was blamed for the delay. Shuaib sought bail, claiming that the trial’s delay was solely due to the prosecution’s lethargy and inefficiency, pointing out that the prosecution had failed to summon necessary witnesses on time. The petitioner further relied on the Supreme Court’s judgment in Ankur Choudhary v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2024), which had ruled that personal liberty under Article 21 would take precedence over the restrictive provisions of Section 37(1)(b) of the NDPS Act in cases where the trial is delayed by the prosecution. Shuaib’s counsel argued that the delay in completing the trial had violated his right to a speedy trial, a right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution, and thus he should be granted bail. The defence further emphasized that Shuaib had not played any role in prolonging the trial process, and the delay had been entirely the result of the prosecution’s failure to act promptly.
On the other hand, the prosecution opposed the bail application, stressing that the conditions under Section 37(1)(b) of the NDPS Act were clear and mandatory. According to the prosecution, bail could only be granted if the court was satisfied that the accused would not commit any further offences and had reasonable grounds to believe that the accused was not guilty. The prosecution argued that since Shuaib was involved in a serious offence related to the trafficking of commercial quantities of narcotic drugs, and the trial had not yet concluded, granting bail would not be in line with the provisions of the NDPS Act. The prosecution also pointed out that the trial had been delayed not due to the actions of the prosecution but because of procedural issues, including the failure of the defence to cooperate in the timely summoning of witnesses.
Court’s Judgment:
Justice A. Badharudeen, while hearing the petition, reviewed the arguments presented by both sides. The court acknowledged that Section 37 of the NDPS Act imposed strict conditions for granting bail, particularly in cases involving commercial quantities of narcotics. However, the court also observed that these conditions must be balanced against the constitutional rights of the accused, especially in light of the delay caused by the prosecution.
The court cited the Supreme Court’s decision in Ankur Choudhary v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2024), which had emphasized that a delay in trial due to the prosecution’s negligence could override the statutory restrictions on bail under Section 37(1)(b) of the NDPS Act. The court noted that the petitioner had been in custody for over two years, and the trial had not progressed due to the prosecution’s inefficiency in summoning necessary witnesses and producing evidence promptly. The court expressed concern about the prosecution’s lack of diligence in ensuring a swift trial and pointed out that the delay had been solely caused by the prosecution’s failure to act properly.
Justice A. Badharudeen stated that the personal liberty of the accused under Article 21 of the Constitution should not be compromised due to delays that are not of the accused’s making. The court concluded that Shuaib’s continued detention without the trial being completed would be a violation of his constitutional rights. As such, the court ruled that Shuaib was entitled to be granted bail, overriding the statutory restrictions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act. The court observed that the petitioner had not contributed in any way to the delay and that the prosecution was solely responsible for the prolonged trial process.
The court directed the trial court to conclude the trial within two months, emphasizing the urgency of resolving the case. The court clarified that delays caused by the accused, whether through dilatory tactics or failure to cooperate, would not warrant the granting of bail under Article 21. In this case, however, since the delay was solely due to the prosecution’s inaction, Shuaib was granted bail.