SC: Right to speedy trial cannot be exercised to grant bail in NDPS case

New Delhi, April 24: The Supreme Court of India has held that the right to a speedy trial, though a constitutional guarantee, cannot by itself justify grant of bail in cases under special laws such as the NDPS Act involving commercial quantity of contraband.

A bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Augustine George Masih set aside an order of the Punjab and Haryana High Court granting bail to two accused in a heroin recovery case.

“The right to speedy trial, rooted in Article 21 of the Constitution, is undoubtedly a precious Constitutional right. That said, in matters governed by a special enactment such as the NDPS Act, particularly where the recovery is of commercial quantity, the said right under Article 21 must be exercised within the framework of Section 37 and cannot be pressed into service solely on the ground of delay to override it.

“The constitutional right under Article 21 and the special provision of law under Section 37, NDPS Act are to be read harmoniously and not placed in opposition to each other. The High Court, by failing to record its satisfaction on the twin conditions under Section 37, has in this court's view, committed an error,” the bench said.

The court found that the High Court order lacked adequate consideration of the record, noting a contradiction between the accused’s admission of involvement in another case and the High Court’s observation that he was not involved in any other case.

“The High Court, however, has recorded that the respondent is 'not involved in any other case', and has expressly counted that recording among the considerations weighing in favour of the grant of bail.

“The recording of the High Court and the admission by the respondent are irreconcilable. A Court while considering the prayer for bail under a special statute and attracting Section 37 of the NDPS Act could not have granted relief on grounds directly at odds with the admissions made by the respondent in the very petition before it. The said order being contrary to facts is flawed that speaks for itself as it appears that this fact was not brought to the notice of the High Court,” the bench said.

The apex court also noted that the High Court order did not refer to the earlier bail plea filed by the accused, which had been dismissed as withdrawn.

“A Court entertaining a successive bail petition under a special statute is bound to refer to the fate of the earlier petition and to record what change in circumstances justifies a fresh consideration,” it said.

Setting aside the High Court order, the court directed the accused to surrender within a week.