NDPS case: Delhi High Court grants bail to man who spent 9 years in jail as undertrial

A man charged under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS Act) was granted bail by the Delhi High Court after he had spent over nine years languishing in jail as an undertrial [Atul Aggarwal v Directorate of Revenue Intelligence]..While granting bail, single-judge Justice Subramonium Prasad observed that though drug trafficking must be deterred with stringent punishment, deprivation of personal liberty without assurance of speedy trial is unconstitutional to its very core.“Deprivation of personal liberty without the assurance of speedy trial contravenes the principles enshrined in our Constitution under Article 21, and is, therefore, unconstitutional to its very core. In such cases, in absence of the pronouncement of conviction, the process itself becomes the punishment. Nine years cannot be said to be a short period of time,” the Court said..The Court was informed that the man was arrested in 2012 and more than 150 kilogram (kg) of Ketamine hydrochloride was recovered from him along with several fake documents. The State further argued that a total of 300 kg of drugs were seized from his premises and the trial will also be completed shortly.Justice Prasad, however, noted that the man has been charged with provisions of the NDPS Act which carry a minimum imprisonment of 10 years..The Court added that since the petitioner has already spent 9 years in jail, he is covered under the judgment of the Supreme Court in Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee case wherein it held that those who have been charged with offences under the NDPS Act which is punishable with minimum imprisonment of ten years and a minimum fine of ₹1 lakh should be released on bail if they have spent five years in jail.“In the instant case, the petitioner has been charged with offences punishable under Sections 9A, 21, 23, 25A of the NDPS Act. With minimum imprisonment of 10 years as stipulated under these offences, an undertrial is to be released if he has been in jail for not less than five years. However, in the case herein, the petitioner has been in custody for more than 9 years. Therefore, the petitioner is squarely covered by the aforementioned judgment,” the Court said..It, therefore, released the man on bail subject to several conditions..[Read Order]