Sushil Kumar @ Silla v. State Of Haryana
!"#$ "%&'&#( ) ) *+',&-.+/ 0 -& '*&-- )))"!&!&#("0 12') *! !"#$ 03 ( ))) "'4#(5"(!
6 7
)* * *
* * 8)0 - "#$% &&'' ()* + ,-,.
,/ 0,0 "001&0% "- 2 34 '" 5
6 ''
7 7 7 7 / 0,0
4 1. 7 # ,$ 0,00
418 ' 7' 7 ' "$. +" 7 , ,.
,/ 0,0 ,0 ,-
' ' #/, !
$,,, 9#,
:7 '
' : ' ' '
''
7 '
7
0 ,- 4 87 4 '' ''
2' "&
!" # $"%&' ( ' )
!* <
+ !
# ",-.%&
/
0 *
1
2 + 3
45".& 6 2
3
&
8 9
77
!(# (-",5 + ' $
=
7 ' ' : ' :
"$. +" ''
)
/
'
7
& # ,$ 0,00 41 87 , , ' 7 & '
0% ,% 0,0 7 ,0 ,$ ' 47 4 7 7 7
' 7
' ' : 7 " 7
7' & 7
-
"&
!
# 2 0 & ) #% 2'1 "49. Sub section (1) mandates courts to continue the proceedings on a day to day basis till the completion of the evidence. Therefore, once a trial starts, it should reach the logical end. Various directions have been issued by this Court not to give unnecessary adjournments resulting in the witnesses being won over. However, the non compliance of Section 309 continues with gay abandon. Perhaps courts alone cannot be faulted as there are multiple reasons that lead to such adjournments. Though the section makes adjournments and that too not for a longer time period as an exception, they become the norm. We are touching upon this provision only to show that any delay on the part of the court or the prosecution would certainly violate Article 21. This is more so
when the accused person is under incarceration. This provision must be applied inuring to the benefit of the accused while considering the application for bail. Whatever may be the nature of the offence, a prolonged trial, appeal or a revision against an accused or a convict under custody or incarceration, would be violative of Article 21. While the courts will have to endeavour to complete at least the recording of the evidence of the private witnesses, as indicated by this Court on quite a few occasions, they shall make sure that the accused does not suffer for the delay occasioned due to no fault of his own".
.
!
"& ' ( ' ) 7 ' vis a vis "$. 2'+ %0,1 19.A plain and literal interpretation of the conditions under Section 37 (i.e., that Court should be satisfied that the accused is not guilty and would not commit any offence) would effectively exclude grant of bail altogether, resulting in punitive detention and unsanctioned preventive detention as well.
Therefore, the only manner in which such special conditions as enacted under Section 37 can be considered within constitutional parameters is where the court is reasonably satisfied on a prima facie look at the material on record (whenever the bail application is made) that the accused is not guilty. Any other interpretation, would result in complete denial of the bail to a person accused of offences such as those enacted under Section 37 of the NDPS Act. 20.The standard to be considered therefore, is one, where the court would look at the material in a broad manner, and reasonably see whether the accused's guilt may be proved. The judgments of this court have, therefore, emphasized that the satisfaction which courts are expected to record, i.e.
reasonable reading, which does not call for meticulous examination of the materials collected during investigation (as held in Union of India v. Rattan Malik). Grant of bail on ground of undue delay in trial, cannot be said to be fettered by Section 37 of the Act, given the imperative of Section 436A which is applicable to offences under the NDPS Act too (ref. Satender Kumar Antil supra). Having regard to these factors the court is of the opinion that in the facts of this case, the appellant deserves to be enlarged on bail.
"&
/
0 :s >< 1 ?$ It appears that some of the occupants of the 'Honda City' Car including Praveen Maurya @ Puneet Maurya have since been released on regular bail. It is true that the quantity recovered from the petitioner is commercial in nature and the provisions of Section 37 of the Act may ordinarily be attracted. However, in the absence of criminal antecedents and the fact that the petitioner is in custody for the last two and a half years, we are satisfied that the conditions of Section 37 of the Act can be dispensed with at this stage, more so when the trial is yet to commence though the charges have been framed." %
"& 6 2
3
"$. @'
2'+ #1
4. As regard to the twin conditions contained in Section 37 of the NDPS Act, learned counsel for the respondent - State has been duly heard. Thus, the 1st condition stands complied with. So far as the 2nd condition re: formation of opinion as to whether there are reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioner is not guilty, the same may not be formed at this stage when he has already spent more than three and a half years in custody. The
prolonged incarceration, generally militates against the most precious fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution and in such a situation, the conditional liberty must override the statutory embargo created under Section 37(1)(b) (ii) of the NDPS Act.
,
' & 7 ' ' ' "$. 7 '
2'
"&
&: 7 ' 2 ' A &A '
7 ' 4 '
) ) * *
Whether speaking :
Yes/No Whether reportable :
Yes/No