The Supreme Court Allows Bail under NDPS Act Based on Undue Delay Despite Strict Requirements
The Supreme Court has emphasized the importance of the right to a speedy trial by ruling that “undue delay” in a trial can serve as a basis for granting bail to an accused, even under strict special legislation like the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act of 1985. This decision holds particular significance as the criteria for bail are generally stringent under the law, comparable to those in anti-terror legislation.
About the case
- The Supreme Court has highlighted the significance of the right to a speedy trial.
- It ruled that “undue delay” in a trial can be a basis for granting bail to an accused.
- This applies even under strict special legislation like the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act of 1985.
- This decision is important because bail criteria are generally stringent under the law.
- The criteria are comparable to those in anti-terror legislation.
Meaning of Undue Delay In Law
- The accused Mohammad had been in custody for over 7 years and 4 months, and the trial was progressing slowly with 34 witnesses remaining to be examined.
- The Court stated that the strict conditions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act cannot take precedence over the general law of granting bail in cases of undue delay in the trial.
- As per Section 436A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, an accused must be granted bail if the trial is not completed within specified time frames.
- The term “reasonable grounds” used in Section 37 is not defined in the statute, thereby increasing the scope of judicial interpretation.
- Section 436A also mandates that no individual can be detained for more than the maximum imprisonment period specified for the offense during the investigation, inquiry, or trial.
- In the 1979 landmark ruling in ‘Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar,’ the Supreme Court recognized the right to a speedy trial as implicit in Article 21’s broad scope and content.