Bail | Prolonged Incarceration Without Trial Violates Article 21 of the Constitution: Bombay High Court

In a significant judgment dated January 20, 2025, the Bombay High Court granted bail to Mohd. Mobin Jahurul Hasan Manihar, accused of possessing 220 grams of Mephedrone (MD), a psychotropic substance under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act). Justice Milind N. Jadhav, while allowing the bail application, observed that continued incarceration for nearly two years without trial violated the applicant’s fundamental right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

The case is a landmark example of balancing the strict provisions of the NDPS Act with the constitutional rights of the accused. The Court granted bail subject to stringent conditions, emphasizing that procedural fairness and respect for personal liberty are integral to the rule of law.

Stringent Bail Conditions Under Section 37 of NDPS Act Must Be Balanced with Right to Speedy Trial
The applicant was accused of possessing 220 grams of Mephedrone, a quantity significantly exceeding the commercial threshold of 50 grams under the NDPS Act. Section 37 of the NDPS Act imposes stringent conditions for bail, requiring the court to be satisfied that:

•    The accused is not guilty of the offence, and
•    The accused is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.
Justice Jadhav acknowledged the rigors of Section 37 but highlighted that “the discretion of the court to grant bail is not entirely fettered, especially in cases of prolonged incarceration and procedural delay.” The Court stated that while drug-related offences have severe societal consequences, “denial of bail resulting in indefinite incarceration without trial would be equally antithetical to the principles of justice.”

The Court noted that the applicant had been in custody for 1 year, 11 months, and 16 days and that there was no likelihood of the trial commencing in the near future. Despite the gravity of the offence, the Court emphasized the need to uphold the applicant's fundamental right to a speedy trial. Justice Jadhav observed:

"Prolonged detention of an undertrial prisoner without trial amounts to an infringement of Article 21. The State cannot justify such incarceration merely on the grounds of the severity of the charges."

The judgment cited the Supreme Court's rulings in Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb (2021) and Hussainara Khatoon v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar (1979), both of which emphasized the significance of speedy trials in upholding the fundamental rights of the accused.

In addition to the delay in trial, the Court also took into account procedural lapses in the investigation. The applicant’s counsel, Senior Advocate Mr. Ashok Mundargi, pointed out:

15-day delay in sending the seized contraband for forensic analysis, contrary to the NDPS Act’s procedural requirements.
Discrepancies in the appearance of the sample packets submitted for forensic analysis.
The Court observed that while such lapses alone may not determine guilt or innocence, they "weaken the prosecution's case at this stage and provide sufficient grounds for granting bail under Article 21."
The judgment underscored the judicial principle that “bail is the rule, and jail is the exception,” especially in cases of prolonged incarceration. Justice Jadhav cited the 1931 ruling in Emperor v. H.L. Hutchinson, wherein the Allahabad High Court emphasized that the discretion to grant bail is unfettered but must be exercised judiciously. The Court further reiterated the principles laid down in Gudikanti Narasimhulu v. Public Prosecutor (1978), highlighting the importance of securing the presence of the accused during trial while respecting their right to liberty.
This judgment strikes a balance between the statutory limitations of the NDPS Act and the constitutional right to personal liberty. It highlights the growing issue of prolonged pre-trial detention in India’s overburdened judicial and prison systems. The decision also reinforces the judiciary's role in ensuring procedural fairness while addressing societal concerns about drug-related offences.

The Bombay High Court's ruling aligns with a series of recent Supreme Court decisions where bail was granted in NDPS cases due to excessive delays in trial. It sets an important precedent for courts to consider the right to speedy justice under Article 21 when dealing with cases under stringent laws like the NDPS Act.

Date of Decision: January 20, 2025