{Drug seizure cases} Prolonged jail may invoke personal liberty deprivation clause: HC

The Punjab and Haryana HC was dealing with a bunch of bails and suspension of sentence matters in the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, (NDPS Act) cases in the two states

Chandigarh The Punjab and Haryana high court has ruled that the provisions of deprivation of personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution can be invoked in drugs seizure cases over prolonged incarceration of a person.

In drug seizure cases, bails/suspension of sentence pleas be decided, pending final disposal of the appeals, was the submission before the court. (HT Photo)

The bench of justice Ajay Tewari and justice Pankaj Jain was dealing with a bunch of bails and suspension of sentence matters in the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, (NDPS Act) cases of Punjab and Haryana. It had come to light before court that 16,000 appeals were pending in the HC and the conclusion of the same is going to take time. Hence, bails/suspension of sentence pleas be decided, pending final disposal of the appeals.

Data shows pending appeals in 2021 as 1,080, up from 57 appeals in 2013 before the division benches. Before single benches, 14,827 appeals were pending in 2021, up from 1,433 in 2013. Then there was this period of almost two years, when due to Covid, hearings remained suspended most of the time.

Section 37 of NDPS could not be

only consideration for bail: Appellants

The appellants had argued that the requirement of Section 37 under the NDPS Act could not be the only consideration for the grant of bail or suspension of sentence. On the other hand, states had argued that as per latest decisions of the Supreme Court, both for bail and for suspension of sentence under the Act, strict parameters of Section 37 had to be met.

Section 37 says every offence punishable under this Act shall be cognisable, no person accused of offences in commercial quantity seizures and under some other sections, the accused can’t be released on bail unless the public prosecutor has been given an opportunity of hearing. The court has to satisfy itself of reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty or won’t commit the offence again, before releasing him on bail.

Article 21 gives a fundamental right on every person not to be deprived of his life or liberty except in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law. Thus, speedy trial is a fundamental right.

The court, after examining a plethora of judgments of the SC and various other courts, observed that in the 1994, the SC held that a person who had undergone five years of pre-convict custody was entitled to be released on bail, on the touchstone of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

Though this judgment related to under-trials and only one time directions were issued, however, the directions in no way can be said to be against the legislative intent but are in furtherance of the Constitution of Article 21.

“Therefore, it will also not be inappropriate if similar principles are followed with some variations and modifications in cases relating to convicts who are languishing in jails for reasons that their appeals are not likely to be heard for a considerable period,” the court observed, adding that the stringent provisions of Section 37 of the Act have to be applied in the cases of the convict/accused, where their cases do not fall within the parameters of Article 21.