Supreme Court Grants Bail Based on Prolonged Incarceration: Mohd Muslim vs. State (NCT of Delhi) (28 March 2023)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 28 March 2023
Citation: 2023 INSC 260
Judges: S. Ravindra Bhat, J., Dipankar Datta, J.

Can an accused be kept in jail indefinitely if the trial is not progressing, even under stringent laws like the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act)? The Supreme Court recently addressed this critical question, emphasizing the importance of speedy trials and the right to personal liberty. This judgment highlights the balance between societal interests and individual rights, particularly when dealing with drug-related offenses.

The Supreme Court bench, comprising Justices S. Ravindra Bhat and Dipankar Datta, delivered the judgment. Justice S. Ravindra Bhat authored the opinion for the bench.

Case Background

The case revolves around Mohd Muslim, who was accused of offenses under Sections 20, 25, and 29 of the NDPS Act. The prosecution alleged that he was part of a drug trafficking network. The police had seized 180 kilograms of ganja from other co-accused on 28 September 2015. Based on the statement of one of the co-accused, Nitesh Ekka, Mohd. Muslim was arrested on the intervening night of 3/4 October 2015.

The prosecution’s case was that Virender Singh @ Beerey would purchase ganja and transfer money to the bank accounts of Mohd. Muslim and other co-accused before further supplying the ganja. The chargesheet was filed on 29 February 2016, and charges were framed on 5 July 2016. Two supplemental chargesheets were also filed later.

Mohd. Muslim’s bail application was rejected by the district court and subsequently by the High Court, primarily due to the gravity of the offense and his alleged role in the drug network. However, he had been in custody for over seven years, and the trial was still far from completion.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The appellant’s bail application was initially rejected by the district court, citing the gravity of the offenses and his alleged role in the crime. The court noted that he was in regular contact with other co-accused and that material witnesses were yet to be examined.

The High Court also rejected his bail application, observing that there was a prima facie case against him, based on call records and bank transactions linking him to the main accused. However, the High Court directed the trial court to expedite the trial and conclude it within six months, a direction that was not followed.

Legal Framework

The case primarily involves Section 37 of the NDPS Act, which imposes stringent conditions for granting bail in cases involving offenses punishable with imprisonment of five years or more. This section states that:

“no person accused of an offence punishable for a term of imprisonment of five years or more under this Act shall be released on bail or on his own bond unless—(i) the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the application for such release, and (ii) where the Public Prosecutor opposes the application, the court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.”

The Supreme Court also considered the implications of Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty, including the right to a speedy trial. The court also referred to Section 436A of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, which mandates the release of an accused on bail if the trial is not concluded within a specified period.

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments:

• The appellant argued that his prolonged incarceration of over seven years, without the trial progressing significantly, entitled him to bail.
• He pointed out that the main accused, Virender Singh @ Beerey, and another co-accused, Nepal Yadav, had already been granted bail by the High Court, thus seeking bail on the ground of parity.
• The appellant emphasized that 34 more witnesses were yet to be examined, indicating a lack of progress in the trial.

Respondent’s Arguments:

• The State, represented by the Additional Solicitor General of India, strongly opposed the grant of bail, citing Section 37 of the NDPS Act.
• It was argued that the appellant was actively involved in the commission of the offense, with call records and bank transactions implicating him with the main accused.
• The State contended that the public interest in protecting against drug trafficking outweighed the individual liberty of the accused.
• The ASG submitted that the appellant was a mastermind behind the supply and delivery of narcotic substances.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following issues:

1. Whether the appellant’s prolonged incarceration, despite the stringent bail conditions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, warrants the grant of bail.
2. Whether the right to a speedy trial, as enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution, is being violated due to the delay in the trial.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court relied on several cases and legal provisions to reach its decision:

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

The Court relied on the following authorities:

• Hussainara Khatoon v. Home Secy., State of Bihar [1979] 3 SCR 1276: (1980) 1 SCC 812* and Abdul Rehman Antulay v. R.S. Nayak [1991] Supp. 3 SCR 325: (1992) 1 SCC 225*: These cases established and re-emphasized the right to a speedy trial as a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution. The Court used these authorities to underscore that prolonged incarceration without a speedy trial is a violation of this right.
• State of Madhya Pradesh v. Kajad [2001] Supp. 2 SCR 617: (2001) 7 SCC 673*: While this case highlighted the strict conditions for bail under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, the Court clarified that these conditions must be interpreted reasonably and not to completely deny bail, especially when trials are delayed.
• Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee (Representing Undertrial Prisoners) v. Union of India [1994] Supp. 4 SCR 386: (1994) 6 SCC 731*: This case was used to show that denying bail while delaying trials is unfair and against the spirit of Article 21. The Court used this to reinforce the idea that the right to speedy trial is a crucial aspect of personal liberty.
• Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab [1994] 2 SCR 375: (1994) 3 SCC 569* and Shaheen Welfare Association v. Union of India [1996] 2 SCR 1123: (1996) 2 SCC 616*: These cases were cited to emphasize that stringent bail provisions are justified only if trials are concluded expeditiously. The Court used these to argue that the delay in this case undermined the justification for the stringent bail conditions.
• Union of India v. K. A. Najeeb [2021] 2 SCR 443: (2021) 3 SCC 713*: This case was used to show that statutory restrictions cannot fetter a constitutional court’s ability to grant bail on the grounds of violation of fundamental rights.
• Vijay Madanlal Chaudhary v. Union of India [2022] 6 SCR 382: 2022 SCC Online SC 929*: This case was used to highlight that if the legislature provides stringent bail conditions, the state must ensure trials are concluded within a reasonable time.
• Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation (2022) 10 SCC 51*: This case was used to argue that Section 436A of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, which mandates the release of an accused on bail if the trial is not concluded within a specified period, would apply to special acts like the NDPS Act.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was heavily influenced by the prolonged incarceration of the appellant without a corresponding progress in the trial. The Court was concerned about the violation of the right to a speedy trial and the potential for injustice due to the delay. The court also considered the fact that the appellant was not found in possession of the contraband, and that other co-accused with similar roles had already been granted bail.

Logical Reasoning

Judgment

The Supreme Court, while acknowledging the stringent conditions for bail under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, held that these conditions must be interpreted reasonably. The Court emphasized that the right to a speedy trial is a fundamental right and that prolonged incarceration without a corresponding progress in the trial is a violation of this right.

The Court observed that:
“A plain and literal interpretation of the conditions under Section 37 (i.e., that Court should be satisfied that the accused is not guilty and would not commit any offence) would effectively exclude grant of bail altogether, resulting in punitive detention and unsanctioned preventive detention as well.”

The Court also noted that:
“The standard to be considered therefore, is one, where the court would look at the material in a broad manner, and reasonably see whether the accused’s guilt may be proved.”

The Court further stated that:
“Grant of bail on ground of undue delay in trial, cannot be said to be fettered by Section 37 of the Act, given the imperative of Section 436A which is applicable to offences under the NDPS Act too.”

The Court directed the appellant to be enlarged on bail, subject to conditions imposed by the trial court. The appeal was allowed, and no costs were imposed.

Key Takeaways

• Prolonged incarceration without a speedy trial can be a ground for granting bail, even under stringent laws like the NDPS Act.
• The right to a speedy trial, as enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution, is a fundamental right that must be upheld.
• Courts must interpret stringent bail conditions reasonably, balancing public interest with individual liberty and the right to a speedy trial.
• Section 436A of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, which mandates the release of an accused on bail if the trial is not concluded within a specified period, applies to offenses under the NDPS Act as well.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that the appellant be enlarged on bail, subject to conditions imposed by the trial court.

Development of Law

This judgment reinforces the importance of the right to a speedy trial and clarifies that stringent bail conditions under special acts like the NDPS Act cannot override fundamental rights, especially when trials are unduly delayed. The judgment also clarifies the applicability of Section 436A of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, to offenses under the NDPS Act. The ratio decidendi of the case is that prolonged incarceration without a speedy trial violates Article 21 of the Constitution, and that the court must balance the stringent bail conditions with the fundamental right to speedy trial. This is a change from the previous position of law, where the stringent conditions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act were often interpreted as a complete bar to bail.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in Mohd Muslim vs. State (NCT of Delhi) is a significant ruling that reaffirms the importance of the right to a speedy trial and personal liberty. The Court’s emphasis on balancing public interest with individual rights, particularly in cases involving stringent laws, highlights the need for a fair and expeditious justice system. By granting bail to the appellant after seven years of incarceration, the Court has sent a strong message that prolonged delays in trials cannot be tolerated, and that fundamental rights must be protected.