Bail Granted in NDPS Case Due to Prolonged Incarceration and Lack of Substantial Evidence. "Right to Speedy Trial Overrides Section 37 NDPS Act's Rigors."

The Bombay High Court granted bail to Accused No. 2 in a case involving the seizure of 191.60 kg of heroin under the NDPS Act. The court emphasized the accused's prolonged incarceration of three years, lack of substantive corroborative evidence, and the inadmissibility of statements under Section 67 of the NDPS Act following the precedent set by Toofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu. Strict bail conditions were imposed.

1. Introduction Applicant: Accused No. 2 filed for bail under Section 439 CrPC. Seizure Details: 191.60 kg of heroin seized from a container. Custody Duration: Applicant in custody since August 9, 2021. 2. Role of Accused No. 2 Profession: Clearing Agent; partner in M/s M.B. Shipping and Logistics Services. Allegations: Assisted Accused No. 1 in clearing consignments containing drugs. 3. Arguments by Applicant’s Counsel Incarceration: Prolonged detention of three years with no trial progress. Evidence: Based solely on inadmissible Section 67 NDPS Act statements. Call Details: Limited to professional and familial communication with Accused No. 1. Precedents: Reliance on multiple judgments emphasizing the right to a speedy trial. 4. Respondent’s Opposition Seizure: Huge quantity of heroin detected. Evidence: Statements recorded under Section 67 NDPS Act and call records linking the accused. 5. Analysis of Evidence Section 67 NDPS Act: Statements inadmissible per Toofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu. Lack of Corroboration: Call records and WhatsApp chats insufficient to establish guilt. Professional Role: Applicant acted as a clearing agent, with no direct involvement in drugs. 6. Right to Speedy Trial Precedents: Apex Court rulings on the necessity of speedy trials and the overriding of Section 37 NDPS Act in cases of prolonged incarceration (Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh, Satender Kumar Antil). 7. Court’s Decision Prolonged Detention: Three years without charge framing or trial progress. Strict Conditions: Bail granted with stringent restrictions to ensure compliance. Acts and Sections Discussed:

NDPS Act, 1985

Section 67: Statements inadmissible as confessions under Toofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu. Section 37: Special conditions for bail in cases involving commercial quantities.

Indian Evidence Act, 1872

Section 25: Bar on the use of confessions to police officers.

Constitution of India

Article 21: Right to life and liberty, including the right to a speedy trial.

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

Section 439: Special powers of the High Court and Sessions Court to grant bail. Ratio Decidendi:

The court underscored that the absence of admissible evidence under Section 67 of the NDPS Act and the prolonged incarceration without trial violated the accused’s fundamental right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution. Hence, bail was granted, overriding the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act.

Subjects:

 Bail in NDPS Act cases, Right to Speedy Trial, Fundamental Rights.

NDPS Act, Bail Application, Section 67, Section 37, Speedy Trial, Fundamental Rights.

Issue of Consideration: Kondiba Gunjal Versus The Union of India & Anr.