The Supreme Court while interpreting Section 37 of the NDPS Act, held that undue delay in trial can be a ground for grant of bail to an accused charged under the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act 1985 (NDPS Act), despite the stringent conditions provided under Section 37 of the Act.

Division bench of Justices S Ravindra Bhat and Dipankar Dutta while extending the benefit of bail under the NDPS Act held that 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.

The Court can grant bail to the accused person under Section 37 NDPS Act only when it is satisfied that 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 Court held 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 requires inter alia the accused to be enlarged on bail if the trial is not concluded within specified period) which is applicable to offences under the NDPS Act too".

The bench held that, "Any other interpretation, would result in complete denial of the bail to a person accused of offences such as those enacted under Section 37 of the NDPS Act".

Considring the condition of jail, the court held that, "Jails are overcrowded and their living conditions, more often than not, appalling. According to the Union Home Ministry’s response to Parliament, the National Crime Records Bureau had recorded that as on 31st December 2021, over 5,54,034 prisoners were lodged in jails against total capacity of 4,25,069 lakhs in the country20. Of these 122,852 were convicts; the
rest 4,27,165 were undertrials."

The Court granted bail to the appellant after noting that he had spent over seven years in jail in an NDPS case and trial was proceeding at snail's pace.

Case Details:-

Criminal Appeal No. 943/2023
MOHD MUSLIM @ HUSSAIN Appellant(s)
 VERSUS
STATE (NCT OF DELHI) Respondent(s)

Click here to read the Complete judgment

Appearances of the Advocates:-

For Appellant(s) 
Ms. Tanya Agarwal, Adv.
 Mr. Ajay Singh, Adv.
 Mrs. Shubhangi Tuli, AOR

For Respondent(s) 
Mr. Vikramjit Banerjee, ASG
 Mr. Shreekant Neelappa Terdal, AOR
 Ms. Nachiketa Joshi, Adv.
 Mr. Digvijay Dam, Adv.
 Mr. Sachin Sharma, Adv.
 Mr. Rajan Kr. Chourasia, Adv.
 Ms. Shruti Agarwal, Adv.
 Ms. Janhvi Prakash, Adv.
 Mr. Kartik Dey, Adv.