Blog Details

MOHD MUSLIM @ HUSSAIN V. STATE (NCT OF DELHI)(2023)

FACTS

On September 28, 2015, at approximately 6:15 pm, a police station received confidential information regarding a planned illegal activity. The information stated that on the same day at 7:30 pm, an individual named Nitesh, who resides in Chhattisgarh and is involved in supplying goods in Delhi and the National Capital Region (NCR), would be arriving with his accomplices in a white-colored XUV vehicle with Chhattisgarh registration. They were allegedly planning to distribute ganja beneath the Barapula Flyover, on Ring Road near Gurudwara Bala Sahib, coming from the Ashram Chowk side.

In response to this information, a Raiding Party was constituted and conducted to apprehend the suspects. As a result, four individuals, namely Nitesh Ekka, Sanjay Chauhan, Sharif Khan, and Virender Shakiyavar (also known as Deepak), were allegedly caught with 180 kg of illegal ganja. Subsequently, they were arrested in connection with the case.

During the investigation, the co-accused Nitesh Ekka was held in police custody for seven days and taken to Chhattisgarh to identify other individuals involved in the case. Additionally, the applicant/accused Mohd. Muslim was arrested from his village on the night of October 3-4, 2014, and held in police custody for two days.

Based on the disclosure statement provided by co-accused Nitesh Ekka, the petitioner in this case was arrested. Charges were filed against the petitioner and the other co-accused. However, the district court denied the appellant's request for bail due to the seriousness of the alleged offenses.

The application for regular bail was rejected, and the trial court was ordered to expedite and conclude the proceedings within six months. This decision was made on the grounds that there was a prima facie case against the appellant and no basis to rely on the exceptions outlined in Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act. Consequently, the appellant has approached this court again, seeking the granting of bail under standard conditions.

ISSUE

1. What criteria should the Court use to determine the phrase 'not guilty' as per Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, when all the evidence has not been presented before the Court?

2. Can bail be granted to the accused, considering the strict conditions specified in Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985?

JUDGEMENT 

The appellant argues that his prolonged incarceration and the slow progress of the trial warrant his release on bail. The counsel for the appellant relies on previous judgments that emphasize the right to a speedy trial as an integral part of the fundamental right to life and liberty under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.

Hussainara Khatoon v. Home Secy., State of Bihar case, where the Supreme Court declared that the right to a speedy trial is implicit in Article 21. This principle has been reiterated in subsequent judgments.

Also in Abdul Rehman Antulay v. R.S. Nayak, which emphasizes that an accused person facing prolonged trial cannot be denied the right to complain about the infringement of their right to a speedy trial.

In the present case, the appellant argues that his bail application should not have been rejected by the High Court, considering his seven years of incarceration and the slow progress of the trial. The appellant's counsel contends that the appellant's prolonged detention violates his right to a speedy trial as guaranteed under Article 21.

The prosecution opposes the grant of bail, citing Section 37 of the NDPS Act, which restricts bail for certain offenses. The prosecution argues that the appellant is actively involved in the commission of the offense, as evidenced by call records and bank transactions, and that public interest in preventing drug-related crimes outweighs the concerns regarding individual liberty.

The court examines the appellant's claim for bail within the framework of the NDPS Act and considers the balance between the presumption of innocence and societal interest. And refers to previous judgments that highlight the importance of concluding trials expeditiously when stringent provisions curtail the right to bail.

Ultimately, the court's decision on whether to grant bail to the appellant will depend on a careful evaluation of the facts, the gravity of the offenses, the appellant's role, and the progress of the trial. The court will need to determine whether the appellant's prolonged incarceration and the slow progress of the trial warrant his release on bail, considering the principles of the right to a speedy trial and the provisions of the NDPS Act.