Supreme Court Grants Bail to Accused After 7 Years in NDPS Case: Mohd Muslim vs. State (28 March 2023)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 28 March 2023
Citation: 2023 INSC 311
Judges: S. Ravindra Bhat, J., Dipankar Datta, J.

Can an accused person be kept in jail indefinitely if their trial is significantly delayed? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in a case involving the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act). The Court emphasized the importance of speedy trials and the right to personal liberty, especially when an accused has been incarcerated for a long period. This judgment highlights the balance between societal interest and individual rights.

The bench was composed of Justice S. Ravindra Bhat and Justice Dipankar Datta. The majority opinion was authored by Justice S. Ravindra Bhat.

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 on 28 September 2015, based on secret information, a police raid led to the arrest of four individuals who were found in possession of 180 kilograms of ganja. During the investigation, one of the accused, Nitesh Ekka, implicated Mohd Muslim, leading to his arrest on the intervening night of 3-4 October 2015.

The prosecution’s case was that Virender Singh @ Beerey, another accused, would purchase ganja and transfer money to the bank accounts of Mohd Muslim and others. The chargesheet was filed on 29 February 2016, and charges were framed on 5 July 2016. Two supplementary 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 offenses and his alleged involvement.

Timeline

Legal Framework

The primary legal framework in this case is the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act), specifically Sections 20, 25, and 29, which deal with offenses related to drug trafficking and possession. Section 37 of the NDPS Act imposes stringent conditions for granting bail, requiring the court to be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the accused is not guilty and is unlikely to commit any offense while on bail.

Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) deals with the power of the High Court or Sessions Court to grant bail. Additionally, Section 482 of the CrPC provides for the inherent powers of the High Court to prevent abuse of the process of law. The Supreme Court also considered Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty, including the right to a speedy trial.

The relevant provisions are:

• Section 37 of the NDPS Act:
  Offences to be cognizable and non-bailable—(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973—(a) every offence punishable under this Act shall be cognizable; (b) 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. (2) The limitations on granting of bail specified in clause (b) of sub-section (1) are in addition to the limitations under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 or any other law for the time being in force, or granting of bail.
• Section 436A of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973:
  Where a person has, during the period of investigation, inquiry or trial under this Code of an offence under any law (not being an offence for which the punishment of death has been specified as one of the punishments under that law) undergone detention for a period extending up to one-half of the maximum period of imprisonment specified for that offence under that law, he shall be released by the Court on his personal bond with or without sureties; Provided that the Court may, after hearing the Public Prosecutor and for reasons to be recorded by it in writing, order the continued detention of such person for a period longer than one-half of the said period or release him on bail instead of the personal bond with or without sureties; Provided further that no such person shall in any case be detained during the period of investigation inquiry or trial for more than the maximum period of imprisonment provided for the said offence under that law.

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments:

• The appellant, Mohd Muslim, argued that his prolonged incarceration of over seven years, without the trial progressing significantly, entitled him to bail.
• It was also pointed out that the main accused, Virender Singh @ Beerey, and another co-accused, Nepal Yadav, had already been granted bail by the High Court, and hence, the appellant should be granted bail on the ground of parity.
• The appellant’s counsel emphasized that 34 more witnesses were yet to be examined, indicating that the trial was not likely to conclude soon.

Respondent’s Arguments:

• The State, represented by the Additional Solicitor General, strongly opposed the grant of bail, citing Section 37 of the NDPS Act.
• The State argued that Mohd Muslim was actively involved in the commission of the offense, with call records and bank transactions linking him to the main accused, Virender Singh @ Beerey.
• The State contended that the public interest in preventing drug trafficking outweighed the individual liberty concerns of the accused, justifying his continued custody.
• The prosecution argued that the appellant was the mastermind behind the supply and delivery of narcotics from Chhattisgarh.

The innovativeness of the argument by the appellant was the emphasis on the prolonged incarceration and the slow pace of the trial, which infringed upon his fundamental right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution.

Submissions of Parties

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issue for consideration:

1. Whether the appellant’s prolonged incarceration, coupled with the slow pace of the trial, justified the grant of bail, despite the restrictions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues:

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following cases and legal provisions:

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

✓ Hussainara Khatoon v. Home Secy., State of Bihar [1979] 3 SCR 1276: (1980) 1 SCC 81* – The court relied on this case to emphasize that the right to a speedy trial is an integral part of Article 21 of the Constitution.

✓ Kadra Pahadiya & Ors. v. State of Bihar (1981) 3 SCC 671* – The court used this case to reiterate the importance of the right to a speedy trial.

✓ Abdul Rehman Antulay v. R.S. Nayak [1991] Supp. 3 SCR 325: (1992) 1 SCC 225* – The court cited this case to highlight that an accused cannot be denied the right to a speedy trial just because they did not demand it.

✓ State of Madhya Pradesh v. Kajad [2001] Supp. 2 SCR 617: (2001) 7 SCC 673* – The court acknowledged this case’s emphasis that a liberal approach should not be adopted while granting bail under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.

✓ Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee (Representing Undertrial Prisoners) v. Union of India [1994] Supp. 4 SCR 386: (1994) 6 SCC 731* – The court relied on this case to show that denying bail while delaying trials is unfair and contrary to the spirit of the law.

✓ Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab [1994] 2 SCR 375: (1994) 3 SCC 569* – The court referred to this case, which upheld stringent bail conditions with the condition that trials would be concluded swiftly.

✓ Vaman Narain Ghiya v. State of Rajasthan [2008] 17 SCR 369: (2009) 2 SCC 281* – The court used this case to explain the concept of bail as a conflict between police power and presumption of innocence.

✓ Shaheen Welfare Association v. Union of India [1996] 2 SCR 1123: (1996) 2 SCC 616* – The court cited this case to emphasize that stringent bail provisions are based on the premise that investigations and trials will be concluded swiftly.

✓ Union of India v. K. A. Najeeb [2021] 2 SCR 443: (2021) 3 SCC 713* – The court relied on this case to state that statutory restrictions on bail cannot fetter a constitutional court’s ability to grant bail for violation of fundamental rights.

✓ Vijay Madanlal Chaudhary v. Union of India [2022] 6 SCR 382: 2022 SCC Online SC 929* – The court acknowledged this case’s ruling that if stringent bail conditions are imposed, the State must ensure trials are concluded within a reasonable time.

✓ Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation (2022) 10 SCC 51* – The court used this case to opine that Section 436A of the CrPC would apply to special acts in the absence of any specific provision.

✓ Section 37 of the NDPS Act – The court acknowledged this provision’s stringent conditions for granting bail but balanced it with the right to a speedy trial.

✓ Section 436A of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – The court used this provision to emphasize the importance of releasing an accused on bail if the trial is not concluded within a specified period.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision to grant bail was primarily influenced by the prolonged incarceration of the appellant without a corresponding progress in the trial. The court emphasized the fundamental right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution and the need to balance stringent bail conditions with individual liberty. The court also noted the parity with other co-accused who had been granted bail and the lack of concrete evidence to support the prosecution’s claim that the appellant was the mastermind.

Sentiment Analysis of Reasons

Fact:Law Ratio

Logical Reasoning

The Court considered alternative interpretations of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, noting that a literal interpretation would effectively deny bail altogether. The Court rejected this interpretation, stating that the conditions under Section 37 must be interpreted reasonably, with a prima facie determination of guilt, not a meticulous examination of evidence at the bail stage.

The court’s reasoning was based on the principle that the right to a speedy trial is a fundamental right, and prolonged incarceration without a trial violates this right. The court also considered the fact that other co-accused had been granted bail, indicating that the appellant’s continued detention was not justified.

The court’s decision was to grant bail to the appellant, subject to conditions imposed by the trial court.

The reasons for the decision were:

• The appellant had been in custody for over seven years.
• The trial had not progressed significantly, with 34 more witnesses to be examined.
• The stringent conditions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act must be balanced with the right to a speedy trial.
• Two other co-accused had already been granted bail.
• The prosecution’s claim that the appellant was the mastermind was not supported by sufficient evidence.

The court did not have any minority opinion.

The court’s decision highlights the importance of the right to a speedy trial and the need to balance stringent bail conditions with individual liberty. The decision also has implications for future cases involving prolonged incarceration and delayed trials, especially under special laws like the NDPS Act.

The court observed, “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 also noted, “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 further stated, “laws which impose stringent conditions for grant of bail, may be necessary in public interest; yet, if trials are not concluded in time, the injustice wrecked on the individual is immeasurable.”

Key Takeaways

• Prolonged incarceration without a speedy trial can be a valid ground for granting bail, even under stringent laws like the NDPS Act.
• Courts must balance the stringent conditions for bail under special laws with the fundamental right to a speedy trial.
• A prima facie determination of guilt is sufficient at the bail stage, not a meticulous examination of evidence.
• Parity with co-accused who have been granted bail can be a relevant factor in granting bail.
• The State must ensure that trials are concluded swiftly, especially in cases involving stringent bail provisions.

This judgment may lead to a more balanced approach in granting bail in cases involving prolonged incarceration, especially under special laws. It emphasizes the importance of speedy trials and the need to protect individual liberties.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that the appellant, Mohd Muslim, be enlarged on bail, subject to such conditions as the trial court may impose.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that prolonged incarceration without a speedy trial can be a valid ground for granting bail, even under stringent laws like the NDPS Act. This judgment reinforces the importance of the right to a speedy trial as a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution. It also clarifies that the stringent conditions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act must be balanced with the individual’s right to liberty and that a prima facie determination of guilt is sufficient at the bail stage.

This judgment does not overrule any previous position of law but rather interprets existing laws in a way that protects the fundamental right to a speedy trial and personal liberty.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Mohd Muslim vs. State (NCT of Delhi) is a significant ruling that emphasizes the importance of the right to a speedy trial and the need to balance stringent bail conditions with individual liberty. The Court granted bail to the appellant after seven years of incarceration, highlighting the injustice of prolonged detention without a corresponding progress in the trial.This decision serves as a reminder to the judiciary and the State to ensure that trials are concluded swiftly, especially in cases involving stringent bail provisions. It also reinforces the principle that the right to a speedy trial is a fundamental right that cannot be ignored.