Cognizance Is of the Offence, Not the Offender: Madras High Court Rejects Challenge to ED’s Supplementary Complaint in PMLA Case Acquittal in Rajasthan No Bar to Trial in Madhya Pradesh: MP High Court Rejects Double Jeopardy Plea in Antiquities Theft Case 20% Deposit Isn’t Automatic in Cheque Bounce Appeals: Right to Appeal Can’t Be Priced Out: Punjab & Haryana High Court Checks Mechanical Use of Section 148 NI Act A Child Is Not a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets New Benchmark in Compensation for Minors’ Deaths 90 Days Is Not Sacrosanct – Courts Can Permit Reply to Counter-Claim Even Beyond Prescribed Time in Interest of Justice: Punjab & Haryana High Court Magistrate Can Proceed Only for Offences Committed in India Until Sanction Is Obtained for Acts Outside India: Orissa High Court on International Financial Fraud Award Is Vitiated by Non-Consideration of Material Evidence: Orissa High Court Sets Aside Industrial Tribunal’s Wage Award in IMFA Case POCSO | Absence of Child's Name in Birth Certificate Not Fatal: Kerala High Court No One Has the Right to Impute Illicit Motives to Judges in the Name of Free Speech: Karnataka High Court Jails Man for Criminal Contempt DV Complaint Cannot Be Quashed at Threshold Under Article 227: Madras High Court Refuses to Interfere, Directs Accused to Seek Remedy Before Magistrate Recovery Wasn't From Accused's Exclusive Knowledge — Cylinder Already Marked in Site Plan Before Arrest: Allahabad High Court Acquits Man in Murder Case Setting Fire to House Where Only Minors Were Present is a Heinous Offence – No Quashing Merely Because Parties Settled: Calcutta High Court No Exclusive Possession Means Licence, Not Lease: Calcutta High Court Rules City Civil Court Has Jurisdiction to Evict Licensees Defendant's Own Family Attested the Sale Agreement – Yet She Called It Nominal: Andhra Pradesh High Court Upholds Specific Performance Renewal Not Automatic, No Evidence Of Notice Or Mutual Agreement: AP High Court Dismisses Indian Oil’s Appeal Against Eviction When Death Is Caused by an Unforeseeable Forest Fire, Criminal Prosecution Cannot Be Sustained Without Proof of Rashness, Negligence, or Knowledge: Supreme Court Proof of Accident Alone is Not Enough – Claimants Must Prove Involvement of Offending Vehicle Under Section 166 MV Act: Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal for Compensation in Fatal Road Accident Case Income Tax | Search Means Search, Not ‘Other Person’: Section 153C Collapses When the Assessee Himself Is Searched: Karnataka High Court Draws a Clear Red Line License Fee on Hoardings is Regulatory, Not Tax; GST Does Not Bar Municipal Levy: Bombay High Court Filing Forged Bank Statement to Mislead Court in Maintenance Case Is Prima Facie Offence Under Section 466 IPC: Allahabad High Court Upholds Summoning Continued Cruelty and Concealment of Infertility Justify Divorce: Chhattisgarh High Court Upholds Divorce Disguising Punishment as Simplicity Is Abuse of Power: Delhi High Court Quashes Dismissals of Civil Defence Volunteers for Being Stigmatic, Not Simpliciter Readiness and Willingness Under Section 16(c) Is Not a Ritualistic Phrase — Plaintiff Must Prove It With Substance, Not Just Words: Karnataka High Court FIR in Disproportionate Assets Case Quashed: Patna High Court Slams SP for 'Non-Application of Mind' and 'Absence of Credible Source Information' Ownership of Vehicle Linked to Commercial Quantity of Heroin – Custodial Interrogation Necessary: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail under Section 482 BNSS Death Caused by Rash Driving Is Not a Private Dispute — No FIR Quashing on Basis of Compromise in Section 106 BNS Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court No Bank Can Override Court Orders: Rajasthan High Court Slams Axis Bank for Unauthorized Withdrawal from Court-Ordered FD"

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

07 May 2024 8:19 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