Jaswant Kumar Alias Sattu v. State Of Punjab
!
"#$# %&''( )*+ ,)) ''' -.) ) '''
)
& /, ' ) ) ),
0000 ) ),1'2
,3 !
" # " $%& "
'
( ) )
*+*& )( (
(,- ' ++& +& +!
*+*&( !. '
( " !/%.01'
23
( * 4
(#5
" ( (6
((# ( ( " 75 7 (
+* +% *+*.8" +*" +.
+% "8 ( 8 "
( ( # " )# # "( (
& 4 " # ) -
9# ( # 5
" ( ( 6 (( # " ( ( $ 9 .
(# "+& +/ *+*& " 85
" ( (6 ((# ( # ( ( " 75 7 (
+* +% *+*.8 8 ( 8 # ) # " )( " " " ( "
: 7 ( ( ;
Although the NDPS Act prescribes stringent conditions for the grant of bail, every statute is required to operate in conformity with the fundamental principles enshrined in the Constitution of India. Given that the present petitioner has suffered incarceration since 03.09.2023 i.e. for
approximately 2 years and 5 months, notwithstanding the rigours of N.D.P.S. Act, the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 cannot be rendered illusory and must be duly balanced.
7. The Hon'ble Apex Court in V. Senthil Balaji v. The Deputy Director, 2024 INSC 739, held that higher thresholds for granting bail in stringent penal statutes like the PMLA, UAPA, and NDPS Act cannot be a tool to keep an accused incarcerated without trial:
25. .....such statutes contain provisions laying down higher threshold for the grant of bail. The expeditious disposal of the trial is also warranted considering the higher threshold set for the grant of bail. Hence, the requirement of expeditious disposal of cases must be read into these statutes....
26. There are a series of decisions of this Court starting from the decision in the case of K.A. Najeeb2, which hold that such stringent provisions for the grant of bail do not take away the power of Constitutional Courts to grant bail on the grounds of violation of Part III of the Constitution of India." % 9 ( 2
( " # ( '
7 ( ( / < # :( " 44 5 !
< ( ( = 7> " ( >7? ( 2) ),3 791( 03 @ )(> A>' 03 @ A>'