Bail is the Rule, Refusal is an Exception – Right to Liberty Cannot Be Ignored: Delhi High Court Grants Bail to Ivory Coast National in NDPS Case

The Delhi High Court granted regular bail to Kan Damian Kouassi, a foreign national from Ivory Coast, who had been languishing in judicial custody for over two years in an NDPS case. The court, while emphasizing the constitutional right to liberty, ruled that "prolonged incarceration before being pronounced guilty should not become punishment without trial."

Justice Neena Bansal Krishna, deciding Bail Application No. 4614/2024, criticized the delay in the trial and observed that "despite over two years of custody, only two out of sixteen prosecution witnesses have been examined. Given the slow pace of proceedings, keeping the applicant in indefinite detention serves no legal purpose."

The case arose from an FIR registered at Mohan Garden Police Station, Delhi, under Sections 8 and 22 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act). The prosecution alleged that 57 grams of amphetamine were recovered from Kouassi, who was arrested based on secret information received by the Anti-Narcotics Cell. The police claimed that he had confessed during interrogation that he procured the contraband from another accused residing in Chander Vihar, Delhi.

Kouassi, through his counsel, argued that he was falsely implicated and that the alleged recovery was planted by the police. The defense further contended that the search violated mandatory legal safeguards, and the absence of independent witnesses raised serious doubts about the credibility of the prosecution's case.

The court found merit in these arguments and noted that "confessional statements made in police custody have no evidentiary value under the NDPS Act. The absence of public witnesses during the alleged search and seizure makes the recovery doubtful. Procedural safeguards under Section 50 of the NDPS Act were also not followed, as no independent magistrate or gazetted officer was present at the time of search."

Referring to Supreme Court judgments on bail in cases involving stringent laws, the court cited Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb (2021) 3 SCC 713, where it was held that "courts are obligated to release undertrial prisoners on bail if the trial is unlikely to conclude within a reasonable time. Statutory restrictions on bail cannot override constitutional guarantees of personal liberty."

The court also referred to Manish Sisodia v. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 139, stating that "the right to liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution is sacrosanct. No individual should be subjected to prolonged detention without being convicted. Fundamental rights must prevail over statutory restrictions."

Granting bail, the court concluded that "since all documentary evidence has already been collected, and given that the trial is progressing at an unreasonably slow pace, there is no justification for keeping the applicant in custody any longer." The judgment reaffirmed the principle that "bail is the rule, and refusal is an exception," ensuring that pre-trial detention does not become a substitute for punishment.
 

Date of Decision: 12 February 2025