Early Times Report
JAMMU, Mar 3: The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh at Jammu has dismissed the bail application of Angrez Singh in a commercial quantity NDPS case, observing that the trial is progressing and nearing conclusion, and the record does not reveal any "inordinate delay" warranting relaxation of the statutory bar under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.
Pronouncing the order, Justice Sanjay Parihar noted that the petitioner is an accused in FIR No. 26/2020 registered at Police Station ANTF, Jammu under Sections 8/20/29 of the NDPS Act, in which the trial court had earlier rejected bail on July 9, 2025 in view of the alleged recovery of 32 kg charas (commercial quantity) and the failure to satisfy the twin conditions required under Section 37.
The petitioner, who was arrested on July 14, 2020, argued that continued incarceration for more than five years violates the right to speedy trial under Article 21, and sought bail primarily on the ground of delay in conclusion of trial. He relied upon Supreme Court decisions including Mohd Muslim @ Hussain v. State (NCT of Delhi), Dheeraj Kumar Shukla v. State of Uttar Pradesh, and Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee v. Union of India, contending that prolonged incarceration and stagnation of trial can justify bail despite statutory restrictions. The petitioner was represented by Mr. Idrees Saleem Dar, Advocate, while the UT was represented by Mr. Pawan Dev Singh, Dy. AG.
However, the High Court pointed out that the charge-sheet was filed on Feb 5, 2021, charges were framed on Aug 24, 2021, and 15 out of 23 prosecution witnesses have already been examined, indicating that proceedings are moving forward in a structured manner.
On the plea seeking benefit of Section 436-A CrPC, the Court held that the offence alleged carries a maximum punishment of 20 years, and the petitioner has not completed one-half of the maximum term to attract the statutory mandate; besides, the provision does not operate as an absolute command where special enactments like the NDPS Act impose additional bail conditions.
The Court further observed that there was no material to show that the prosecution was remiss or that the proceedings had stagnated without justification; therefore, mere passage of time cannot, by itself, dilute the embargo under Section 37 when the trial is nearing conclusion.
Relying on the Supreme Court ruling in NCB v. Mohit Aggarwal, the High Court reiterated that bail in commercial quantity cases requires satisfaction of the twin conditions-reasonable grounds to believe the accused is not guilty and that he is unlikely to commit an offence while on bail-and held that the petitioner failed to meet these requirements, with the evidence recorded so far prima facie supporting the prosecution case.
Accordingly, the bail application was dismissed. At the same time, considering the custody already undergone, the High Court directed the trial court to accord priority to the case and make earnest efforts to conclude the trial expeditiously, preferably within a fixed timeframe, subject to cooperation of the parties. (JNF) |
