1. Court’s Decision
The High Court granted bail to the applicant, taking into account the following key factors:
- Prolonged incarceration: The applicant had been in custody since May 2023, with no charges framed yet.
- Medical condition: The applicant suffered from Thalassemia Major, requiring regular medical care that was not adequately available in jail.
- Delay in trial: There were 39 prosecution witnesses, and the trial was unlikely to conclude anytime soon.
- Legal considerations: While the NDPS Act imposes strict conditions for bail, the Supreme Court has held that prolonged incarceration and trial delays can override these restrictions.
The Court imposed strict conditions for bail, including weekly reporting to the investigating officer, restrictions on leaving the country, and ensuring cooperation with the trial.
2. Facts of the Case
- On May 29, 2023, law enforcement received secret information that an individual would attempt to book a parcel containing narcotic drugs at a courier service.
- The accused was intercepted at the courier office, and 15 LSD paper blots were recovered.
- Further investigation led to multiple recoveries from different individuals, including 650 LSD blots from a co-accused’s house.
- The applicant was implicated based on statements from co-accused persons who claimed that:
- The applicant facilitated the LSD trade.
- Payments were made in Bitcoin (BTC) through an encrypted messaging app.
- A significant consignment was linked to the applicant and her associates.
- Additional searches led to the recovery of over 9,000 LSD blots and cash from another co-accused in Jaipur.
The applicant was arrested and remained in custody without any direct recovery of drugs from her possession.
3. Key Issues Before the Court
- Direct involvement: Whether the applicant was directly engaged in narcotics distribution.
- Medical condition: Whether the applicant’s health condition warranted bail despite the NDPS Act’s stringent provisions.
- Bail eligibility under NDPS Act: Whether the applicant met the strict requirements under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, which restricts bail for offenses involving commercial quantities.
- Effect of prolonged incarceration: Whether the delay in trial justified bail despite the severity of the charges.
4. Petitioner’s (Applicant’s) Arguments
- False implication: The applicant was falsely implicated based solely on co-accused statements. There was no direct recovery from her possession.
- Weak evidence: The prosecution’s case relied on statements, with no digital proof linking her to illegal transactions.
- Discrepancies in case: The quantity of recovered LSD blots varied across different reports, raising doubts about prosecution claims.
- Medical condition: The applicant suffered from Thalassemia Major, which required frequent blood transfusions and specialized medical care, unavailable in jail.
- Right to a speedy trial: With 39 witnesses to be examined, the trial was unlikely to be completed soon. Indefinite incarceration without trial violated fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution.
5. Respondent’s (Prosecution’s) Arguments
- Commercial quantity of drugs: The case involved a large quantity of LSD blots, triggering the strict bail restrictions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.
- Drug syndicate involvement: The applicant was part of a larger drug network, not a mere consumer.
- Prior case involvement: The applicant had been implicated in another NDPS case, showing a pattern of involvement in drug trafficking.
- Seriousness of the offense: The nature of the crime posed a threat to public safety, making bail inappropriate.
6. Legal Analysis: Bail Conditions Under NDPS Act
Under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, bail can only be granted if:
- The Public Prosecutor is given a chance to oppose the bail application.
- The court is satisfied that the accused is not guilty and will not commit another offense while on bail.
The Court noted that while the NDPS Act imposes strict conditions, judicial precedents allow exceptions in cases of:
- Excessive incarceration without trial
- Medical conditions requiring urgent care
7. Precedents Considered by the Court
The Court relied on several Supreme Court judgments:
(i) Mohd. Muslim v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2023 SCC OnLine SC 352)
- Bail can be granted despite Section 37 NDPS Act if the trial is excessively delayed.
- Emphasized right to a speedy trial as a fundamental right.
(ii) Rabi Prakash v. State of Odisha (2023 SCC OnLine SC 1109)
- Prolonged incarceration violates Article 21 of the Constitution.
- Bail must be considered if the trial is likely to take a long time.
(iii) Salim Valimamad Majothi v. State of Gujarat (2023 SCC OnLine SC 659)
- Bail granted due to medical condition and extended pre-trial detention.
(iv) Man Mandal & Anr. v. State of West Bengal (SLP(CRL.) No. 8656/2023)
- Bail was granted due to prolonged incarceration exceeding two years.
8. Court’s Reasoning for Granting Bail
- Medical Condition
- The applicant had Thalassemia Major, requiring frequent medical care unavailable in jail.
- Previous interim bail had already been granted due to inadequate jail medical facilities.
- Delay in Trial
- The applicant was arrested in May 2023, but charges had not been framed.
- The trial had 39 witnesses, making it unlikely to conclude soon.
- No Direct Recovery from the Applicant
- The prosecution relied only on co-accused statements.
- The Court observed that her guilt was yet to be determined at trial.
- Judicial Precedents
- Supreme Court rulings confirmed that prolonged incarceration justified bail.
- Strict bail conditions would ensure compliance with legal proceedings.
9. Conclusion
The Court granted bail on the basis of:
- Long pre-trial detention
- Severe medical condition requiring specialized treatment
- Lack of direct evidence linking the applicant to narcotics trade
- Supreme Court precedents allowing bail under such circumstances
The bail was granted with strict conditions, including:
- Weekly reporting to the investigating officer.
- Restriction from leaving the country without court permission.
- Keeping the police informed about the applicant’s address and phone number.
10. Implications of the Judgment
- Strengthens the principle that prolonged incarceration violates Article 21 (Right to Life and Liberty).
- Sets a precedent for bail in NDPS cases where trials are delayed.
- Clarifies that medical conditions can be a valid ground for bail under stringent laws.
- Emphasizes the importance of evidence-based prosecution rather than reliance on co-accused statements.