In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court has held that if a convict has undergone a long period of incarceration and the likelihood of an early hearing of their appeal is remote, bail can be granted despite the strict conditions imposed by Section 37 of the NDPS Act. This ruling came in the case of Narcotics Control Bureau v. Lakhwinder Singh.
In this case, the High Court had granted bail to an accused by suspending his sentence. The accused was convicted under the NDPS Act and sentenced to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment. However, he had already served 4.5 years in jail.
The Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB) challenged this decision in the Supreme Court, arguing that under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, bail can only be granted if the accused has served at least half of the total sentence.
The Supreme Court observed:
"If an accused has already served a substantial portion of their sentence and their appeal is unlikely to be heard soon, the court has the power to grant bail. Denying bail solely based on Section 37 would violate the accused's fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution."
Read Also:- Supreme Court Reviews Centre's Unified Pension Scheme to Address Judicial Officers' Pension Concerns
Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act imposes strict conditions for granting bail, particularly when the punishment is 10 years or more. Under this section, bail can only be granted if:
The court is satisfied, after hearing the prosecution, that the accused is not guilty.
There is reasonable assurance that the accused will not commit any further offenses after release.
However, in this case, the Supreme Court ruled that when an appeal is pending for an indefinite period and the convict has already served a significant portion of their sentence, bail can still be considered.
1. Protecting the Accused’s Right Under Article 21 : The Supreme Court emphasized that if an appeal remains pending for a long time and the accused has already served a significant part of their sentence, denying bail would violate Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty.
"If courts adopt an excessively rigid approach, many convicts will complete their entire sentence before their appeal is even heard. This would defeat the purpose of the judicial process and violate fundamental rights."
Read Also:- Article 226 | Supreme Court: Writ Courts Can Deny Action on Technical Grounds to Uphold Justice
2. 'One-Time Direction' Cannot Restrict Bail Powers : NCB cited the case of "Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee vs. Union of India (1994)", where the court had ruled that bail should not be granted unless the accused had completed at least half of their sentence.
However, the Supreme Court rejected this argument, stating:
"This was a one-time direction given in specific circumstances and cannot be considered a rigid rule. Courts still have the authority to grant bail based on the facts of the case."
3. The Problem of Pending Appeals : The Supreme Court noted that many appeals remain pending for years, and if a strict approach is taken, convicts may serve their entire sentence before their appeal is heard, making the appeal meaningless.
"A rigid interpretation of the law would render the right to appeal ineffective, as convicts would complete their entire sentence before their case is even reviewed."
Case : Narcotics Control Bureau v Lakhwinder Singh
