SRINAGAR: The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh Excessive Court docket has upheld the strict bail situations outlined within the Narcotic Medication and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act. Nonetheless, it has acknowledged the paramount proper to a speedy trial enshrined in Article 21 of the Structure.
Highlighting the crucial must interpret Part 37 of the NDPS Act in concord with the basic proper to life and liberty assured beneath Article 21, Justice Sanjeev Kumar, referencing Mohammad Muslim @ Hussain v State (NCT of Delhi), reported in 2023, said, “With a view to save lots of the constitutionality of Part 37 of the NDPS Act, it’s essential to learn Part 37 of the NDPS Act topic to the basic proper of life and liberty assured beneath Article 21 of the Structure of India.”
The case revolved round Bashir Ahmad Bhat, a 65-year-old man arrested in 2021 for allegedly possessing a industrial amount of poppy straw.
Bhat’s preliminary bail plea was rejected by the trial court docket resulting from Part 37 of the NDPS Act, making bail exceptionally difficult in such circumstances. Bhat subsequently filed a recent bail plea earlier than the Excessive Court docket, arguing that the inordinate delay in his trial, with solely six out of 12 witnesses examined in two years, had infringed upon his proper to a speedy trial.
On the prosecution’s aspect, the emphasis was positioned on the severity of the non-bailable offence, the industrial amount of the contraband, and the applicability of Part 37 of the NDPS Act.
Justice Kumar engaged in a complete dialogue on the constitutional facet, particularly addressing Part 37 of the NDPS Act. The court docket underscored the necessity to interpret Part 37 in concord with the basic proper to life and liberty assured beneath Article 21.
Referring to the constitutional stability, the decide highlighted that whereas Part 37 imposes stringent situations for bail, it can not outrightly deny bail with out contemplating the accused’s basic rights. Justice Kumar recorded, “There may be not an iota of doubt that extended incarceration with out bail violates the fitting of the accused to a speedy trial, implicit beneath Article 21. In such a state of affairs, the place the Court docket opines that the trial has been extended past cheap limits, it could grant bail to the accused on the energy of Article 21, the rigours of Part 37 however.”
Whereas Bhat’s bail utility was finally dismissed as a result of ongoing trial and current prima facie case, the Court docket issued an important directive to the trial court docket. Recognizing the potential injustice of extended incarceration with out a swift conclusion, Justice Kumar emphasised the “onerous responsibility” to finalise the case inside a 12 months.
“This Court docket, nevertheless, views severely the lapse on the a part of the prosecution to look at the remainder of the six witnesses with promptitude. I, subsequently, take this chance to remind the trial Court docket of its onerous responsibility to conclude the trial with out waste of time, extra notably when the accused is in custody,” the court docket said.
Notably, Bhat was given the freedom to file a recent bail utility if the trial court docket didn’t conclude the trial throughout the stipulated interval granted.
#Jammu #Kashmir #Excessive #Court docket #Upholds #NDPS #Act #Bail #Restrictions
