If Right To Speedy Trial Is Infringed Bail Should Have Been Granted Till Trial Finishes: SC Terms High Court's Order Granting Bail In NDPS Case For Two Months 'Incorrect'
The Supreme Court recently termed incorrect, an order passed by the Orissa High Court granting bail to an Accused in a NDPS case only for a limited time period i.e. two months. The Court issued notice in the SLP and directed that the petitioner shall continue to remain on bail pending its further orders.
The Court said if the High Court was in the view that the right to have a speedy trial is infringed, bail should have been granted until final disposal of the case.
The Bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan observed, “ In our opinion, it is an incorrect order. If the High Court was of the view that the right of the petitioner to have a speedy trial could be said to have been infringed, then the High Court should have ordered release of the petitioner on bail pending final disposal of the trial itself. There was no good reason for the High Court to limit the period of bail.”
Senior Advocate Sasurbabh Soparkar appeared for the Petitioner while Advocate Varun K Patel appeared for the Respondents.
The Accused was charged for the offences under Section 20(b)(ii)(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act. He preferred bail application before the High Court. The High Court took notice of the fact that the Accused was in custody since May 11, 2022 and only one witness had been examined so far. In such circumstances, the High Court thought fit to order the release of the Accused on bail but only for a period of two months.
The Orissa High Court had ordered, “It is submitted that despite being in custody for nearly two years there is no possibility of trial being concluded in near future, which amounts to pre-trial punishment of the petitioner….This Court has already taken note of the status of trial as informed by the Court below. Though the quantity of contraband seized is huge, however taking note of the delay in conclusion of the trial, I am inclined to take a lenient view. The bail application is disposed of directing the Court below to release the petitioner on interim bail for a period of two months from the date of his actual release on such terms and conditions as he may deem fit and proper to impose.”
The Accused assailed the order of the High Court vide the present Special Leave Petition.
The Apex Court also highlighted, “It is now well settled that the right to a speedy trial is recognised as a fundamental right guaranteed by the Constitution and is closely tied to the right to life and personal liberty, as held by this Court in Hussainara Khatoon & Ors. Vs. Home Secretary, State of Bihar, Patna [1979 (3) SCR 532]…In view of the aforesaid, issue notice.”
Accordingly, the Court directed the Accused to remain on bail until further orders.
Cause Title: Kishor Karmakar v. State of Orissa
Appearances:
Petitioner: AOR Manju Jetley and Advocate Shyam Manohar