Deprivation of personal liberty without ensuring speedy trial is not consistent with Article 21,” says Justice Sandeep Moudgil while granting bail to Bhupesh Kumar @ Happy.

In a significant judgment, the Punjab and Haryana High Court granted regular bail to Bhupesh Kumar @ Happy, an accused under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act. The court emphasized the right to a speedy trial as enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution, highlighting the undue delay in the trial process and the lack of substantial evidence against the petitioner.

The petitioner, Bhupesh Kumar @ Happy, was arrested under FIR No.185 dated 9.7.2022, for possession of a commercial quantity of Tramadol Hydrochloride capsules and tablets. The police alleged that Kumar threw a bag containing the contraband upon seeing the police party. However, the defense argued that the police’s use of a private vehicle and the lack of recorded details about this vehicle cast doubt on the prosecution’s story. The petitioner has been in custody since his arrest and had already spent nearly two years in jail by the time of this judgment.

Justice Sandeep Moudgil questioned the procedural integrity of the police action, noting the absence of details regarding the private vehicle used by the police. This irregularity, according to the court, undermines the prosecution’s case and raises the possibility of false implication.

The court underscored the petitioner’s prolonged incarceration and the slow pace of the trial, with only two out of nine prosecution witnesses examined over a significant period. Justice Moudgil referenced the Supreme Court’s judgment in “Dataram Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh” which established the principle that “Bail is a rule, jail is an exception.” The court further cited the constitutional mandate for a speedy trial, as reinforced in “Hussainara Khatoon vs. State of Bihar” and “Abdul Rehman Antulay vs. R.S. Nayak”.

Justice Moudgil remarked, “Deprivation of personal liberty without ensuring speedy trial is not consistent with Article 21. While deprivation of personal liberty for some period may not be avoidable, the period of deprivation pending trial/appeal cannot be unduly long.” The judgment acknowledged the necessity of balancing the rights of the accused with societal interests but emphasized the constitutional guarantee of a fair and timely trial.

Justice Moudgil stated, “The principle ‘Bail is a rule, jail is an exception’ must be adhered to, especially when the trial is moving at a slow pace. The right to speedy trial is part of the reasonable, fair, and just procedure guaranteed under Article 21.”

The Punjab and Haryana High Court’s decision to grant bail to Bhupesh Kumar @ Happy serves as a reaffirmation of the judiciary’s commitment to uphold constitutional rights, particularly the right to a speedy trial. This judgment is expected to influence future cases, ensuring that prolonged pre-trial detention without sufficient cause is minimized, thereby strengthening the legal framework for the protection of individual liberties.

Date of Decision: July 23, 2024

Bhupesh Kumar @ Happy vs. State of Punjab