Prolonged Detention Without Direct Evidence Violates Article 21: Punjab & Haryana HC Grants Bail in NDPS Case

"Grant of Bail is a Rule, Incarceration an Exception" - Punjab and Haryana High Court allowed a petition under Section 439 CrPC for regular bail. Justice Sandeep Moudgil ruled that the absence of direct recovery or specific evidence against the petitioner, coupled with prolonged incarceration, justified the grant of bail. The case involved charges under Sections 22(c) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act). Emphasizing the principle that “bail is the rule, and incarceration an exception,” the court cited the petitioner’s right to a speedy trial as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution.

The case originated from the arrest of co-accused Krishan Pal on March 8, 2024, from whom 960 capsules containing Tramadol Hydrochloride were allegedly recovered. Based on the disclosure statement of Krishan Pal, the petitioner Ankit Kumar was implicated in the offense. However, no contraband or incriminating evidence was directly recovered from the petitioner. The prosecution filed the chargesheet on July 11, 2024, and the petitioner had remained in custody for more than eight months, with charges yet to be framed.

The petitioner sought bail on the ground that his implication was based solely on the disclosure statement of the co-accused, which, as per settled law, lacks evidentiary value. The State opposed the plea, citing the gravity of the offense under the NDPS Act but conceded that the petitioner had been in custody for a substantial period.

The primary legal questions before the court were whether prolonged pre-trial detention was justified in the absence of direct evidence and whether reliance on a co-accused’s disclosure statement was sufficient to deny bail under the stringent provisions of the NDPS Act.

Justice Moudgil, while examining the facts and legal principles, observed that the alleged recovery was made from the co-accused, Krishan Pal, and no specific role had been attributed to the petitioner. The court underscored:

“Considering the fact that the alleged recovery in this case has been effected from co-accused Krishan Pal and no specific role is attributed to the petitioner, it is evident that his name surfaced solely through the disclosure statement of the co-accused. Such a statement has limited evidentiary value and cannot alone justify continued detention.”

Referring to the Supreme Court’s judgment in Dataram Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2018(2) RCR (Criminal) 131, the court emphasized the foundational principle of criminal jurisprudence:

“A fundamental postulate of criminal law is the presumption of innocence, meaning thereby that a person is presumed innocent until proven guilty. The grant of bail is a rule, and incarceration is an exception. Unfortunately, these principles appear to have been overlooked in this case, leading to the petitioner’s prolonged incarceration.”

On the question of prolonged detention, the court relied on the constitutional mandate of a speedy trial under Article 21. Citing the landmark judgment in Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar, (1980) 1 SCC 98, the court observed:

“The petitioner has been in custody for almost eight months, and the charges are yet to be framed. Detaining the petitioner indefinitely without trial amounts to a violation of his fundamental right under Article 21. A reasonable and just procedure requires that undertrials should not be subjected to prolonged pre-conviction incarceration.”

The court further pointed out that while the NDPS Act contains stringent provisions for bail due to the gravity of drug-related offenses, such provisions must not override basic principles of fairness and justice. “Stringency in law cannot substitute for evidence or justify indefinite incarceration when no direct recovery or specific role is attributed to the accused,” the court stated.

The judgment also referenced Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2021) 4 SCC 1, wherein the Supreme Court held that a disclosure statement under Section 67 of the NDPS Act or Section 161 CrPC has limited evidentiary value unless corroborated by independent evidence. Justice Moudgil noted:

“The petitioner’s alleged involvement in the offense rests solely on the disclosure statement of the co-accused. As per settled law, such statements are not substantive evidence and cannot form the sole basis for denying bail.”

Granting bail to the petitioner, the court ruled:

“The petitioner is hereby directed to be released on regular bail under Section 439 CrPC upon furnishing bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial court/duty magistrate. The observations made hereinabove shall not be construed as an opinion on the merits of the case.”

The court reiterated that the denial of bail should not become a form of punishment. “The petitioner cannot be made to languish in jail indefinitely when the trial is yet to commence, and no concrete evidence has been presented against him.”

The judgment underscores the judiciary’s commitment to safeguarding the fundamental rights of undertrials, especially the right to a speedy trial and the presumption of innocence. By emphasizing that incarceration should not substitute for evidence, the court reaffirmed that even in cases under stringent laws like the NDPS Act, bail remains the rule, and detention is the exception.

Date of Decision: December 2, 2024