New Delhi: "Speedy justice is a fundamental right enshrined under the ambit of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, and the same needs to be given effect by this court in letter and in spirit, else it will remain as a dead letter of law," the Delhi High Court observed on Tuesday, according to legal news website Live Law. The remarks were made while granting bail to an accused under the Narcotics, Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, languishing in jail for more than four years.
Justice Chandra Dhari Singh was hearing the regular bail application filed by Mahesh, who was allegedly found to be in possession of 20 grams of Ecstasy (commercial quantity).
The investigation against him was complete and chargesheet was also filed before the Sessions Court. Charges were framed against him in November 2018 under Sections 22 and 29 of the NDPS Act.
The High Court noted that till date, out of a total of 14 witnesses only two witnesses have been examined, and as such there is no probability of the trial being concluded in the near future.
"Thus, pending trial the Applicant cannot be kept incarcerated for an indefinite period. Therefore, this court must step in to ensure that speedy justice is done, and injustice is not caused to the undertrial Applicant," the court ordered.
The Applicant had denied the allegations as false and fabricated. Advocates Akshay Bhandari and Digvijay Singh appearing for the Petitioner submitted that he has been languishing in jail for more than 4 years as an undertrial accused, whereas the main accused against whom there is an allegation of being in possession of 42 grams of Ecstasy has already been enlarged on bail.
APP Kusum Dhalla for State vehemently opposed the Bail Application and submitted that the contraband recovered from the Applicant was of commercial quantity. Further, CDR analysis of mobile phones of both the accused also confirm their proximity and presence at the place of delivery of contraband.
At the outset, the Court noted that bail under Section 37 of the NDPS Act cannot be granted for offences involving commercial quantity unless the two-fold conditions are met: First, hearing the Public Prosecutor and second, satisfaction of the court based on reasonable grounds that the accused is not guilty of the offence and that he is likely to not commit an offence of a similar nature.