Section 498A IPC | Asking Daughter-In-Law To Do Household Chores Like Washing Clothes & Utensils Does Not Amount To 'Cruelty': Bombay High Court Section 306 IPC | Instigation Can Be Inferred From Continued Harassment, Absence Of Suicide Note No Ground For Discharge: Madhya Pradesh High Court Section 20 Prevention Of Corruption Act | Statutory Presumption Cannot Be Triggered Without Proof Of Demand; Mere Recovery Insufficient: Himachal Pradesh High Court Gift Of Temple Inam Land Void Ab Initio, Incapable Of Government Sanction Or Valid Registration: Supreme Court Section 483 BNSS | Pursuing Parallel Remedies & Suppressing Rejection Of Interim Relief Amounts To Abuse Of Process; Uberrima Fides Essential For Bail: Supreme Court Suit For Possession Simpliciter Not Maintainable When Registered Sale Deed Casts Serious Cloud On Title; Declaration Or Cancellation Mandatory: Supreme Court Representation Of People Act | Private Complaint By Voter Maintainable For False Nomination Affidavit, Section 195 CrPC Bar Inapplicable: Supreme Court Gravity Of Allegations Cannot Eclipse Other Bail Considerations Or Justify Indefinite Pre-Trial Detention: Supreme Court Contract Act | Agreement To Sell Not Enforceable Contract Prior To Conveyance Deed; State Can Re-Auction For Price Maximisation: Supreme Court Failure To Consider Incident Video Footage & Section 161 CrPC Witness Statements Vitiates Grant Of Bail: Supreme Court Section 125 CrPC | Adverse Finding Of Adultery Cannot Be Recorded Against Specifically Named Co-Adulterer Without Giving Opportunity Of Hearing: Allahabad High Court Order 6 Rule 17 CPC | Amendment Of Pleadings To Correct Typographical Errors Should Be Allowed To Ensure True Facts Are Before Court: Andhra Pradesh High Court Major Penalty Of Removal From Service Cannot Be Imposed Without Departmental Inquiry: Bombay High Court Quashes Order Under General Insurance Rules Section 482 CrPC | High Court Cannot Quash FIR When Allegations Of Forgery And Fraud Raise Disputed Questions Of Fact: Delhi High Court Criminal Proceedings Cannot Be Quashed In Entirety Merely Because Section 498A IPC Is Not Sustainable Due To Invalid Marriage: Calcutta High Court Section 138 NI Act | Arraigning Company As Accused Imperative To Prosecute Managing Director Or Signatory: Himachal Pradesh High Court Section 14(6) DRC Act | 5-Year Bar On Eviction Inapplicable When Co-Owners Acquire Premises Inter Se Family Through Gift Deed: Delhi High Court Territorial Jurisdiction In Missing Person Cases | Court Can Direct CBI Probe If Journey Commenced Within Its Jurisdiction: Kerala High Court Future Prospects Must Be Added In Permanent Disability Cases Even If Functional Disability Is Assessed Liberally: Punjab & Haryana High Court Registration Act | Registering Authority Lacks Power To Refuse Registration On Grounds Of Unapproved Layout Or Lack Of Title: Telangana High Court

Supreme Court Grants Bail in NDPS Case, Citing ‘Protracted Trial’ and Lack of Prior Criminal Record”

07 May 2024 2:49 AM

By: Admin


 

High Court’s rejection of bail overturned, Supreme Court emphasizes the need for timely trials and safeguarding constitutional rights.

 

 

In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India has granted bail to Mark Floyd D’Costa, an accused in a narcotics case under the NDPS Act, who has been in custody for over three years without significant trial progress. The judgment, delivered by Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan, underscores the critical importance of timely trials and the protection of constitutional rights for the accused.

 

 

Mark Floyd D’Costa was arrested on March 27, 2021, by the Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB) for offences under Sections 8©, 22(B), 22(C), 24(C), 27, 27A, 28, and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act). He has been in custody since his arrest. Despite the gravity of the charges, which include possession and trafficking of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances, the trial had not progressed significantly. Charges were framed only on March 19, 2024, leading to a substantial delay.

 

 

The Supreme Court took serious note of the undue delay in the trial process. “The charges have been framed after three years of custody, and there has been no subsequent progress in the matter,” the bench observed, highlighting the necessity for expeditious trial proceedings in line with constitutional rights. The court emphasized that the protracted trial process could not be justified, especially when the appellant had no prior criminal antecedents.

 

 

While granting bail, the Supreme Court imposed strict conditions to ensure the appellant’s presence during the trial. “The appellant shall extend complete cooperation in the trial of the instant case and shall not misuse his liberty in any manner,” directed the bench. Any infraction of these conditions would lead to the cancellation of bail.

 

 

The judgment discussed the balance between the gravity of the offence and the rights of the accused. “We have considered the contentions advanced at the Bar and we are of the view that the appellant has made out a case for grant of bail,” the bench stated, emphasizing the principles of fairness and justice in the legal process. The court acknowledged that while the offence is punishable with rigorous imprisonment of up to 20 years, the prolonged custody without trial progress warranted relief.

 

 

Justice B.V. Nagarathna remarked, “The appellant has been languishing in jail for three and a half years; that the appellant has a good case on merits. The charges have been framed as late as on 19.03.2024 and subsequently, there has been no progress in the matter.”

 

 

The Supreme Court’s decision to grant bail to Mark Floyd D’Costa highlights the judiciary’s commitment to upholding the constitutional rights of individuals, even in serious narcotics cases. By emphasizing the need for timely trials and fair treatment of first-time offenders, the judgment sends a strong message about the importance of due process and the protection of individual liberties. This landmark ruling is expected to influence future cases, ensuring that justice is not only done but seen to be done in a timely manner.

 

 

Date of Decision: June 24, 2024

 

 

Mark Floyd D’Costa vs. Intelligence Officer, Narcotics Control Bureau

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[gview file="https://lawyerenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/24-June-24-Bail.pdf"]

 

Latest Legal News