Limitation For Executing Partition Decree Not Suspended Till Engrossment; Right To Seek Engrossment Subsists During 12-Year Execution Period: Allahabad HC Unilateral Revocation Of Registered Gift Deed Through Sub-Registrar Is Void, Donor Must Approach Civil Court: Andhra Pradesh High Court Mediation Cannot Be Forced Upon Unwilling Party In Civil Suits; Consent Of Both Sides Essential: Bombay High Court Unmarried Daughter Not Entitled To Freedom Fighter Pension If Gainfully Employed At Time Of Father's Death: Calcutta High Court Section 125 CrPC | Maintenance Cannot Be Denied For Lack Of Formal Divorce From First Marriage: Delhi High Court ONGC Cannot Demand Security From Award Holder After Giving ‘No Objection’ To Withdrawal Of Deposited Amount: Andhra Pradesh High Court Sedative Drugs Like Tramadol Impact Mental Fitness Of Declarant; Bombay High Court Acquits Man Relying On Doubtful Dying Declarations Postal Tracking Report Showing 'Refusal' Not Conclusive Proof Of Service If Denied On Oath: Delhi High Court Encroachments Near Military Installations Pose National Security Threat; Remove Illegal Constructions Within Three Months: Rajasthan High Court Punjab & Haryana High Court Directs State To Decide On Legality Of Charging Fees For Downloading FIRs From 'SAANJH' Portal Wife’s Educational Qualifications No Bar To Seeking Maintenance If Actual Employment Is Not Proven: Orissa High Court Mere Telephonic Contact Without Substance Of Conversation Cannot Establish Criminal Conspiracy: Madhya Pradesh High Court Serious Allegations Like HIV/AIDS Imputations Require Corroboration, Cannot Rest Solely On Unsubstantiated Testimony: Karnataka High Court Family Court Cannot Refuse Mutual Consent Divorce Merely Because Parties Are Living Separately 'Without Valid Reason': Kerala High Court Collective Attempts By Advocates To Overbear Presiding Officer Not Protected Professional Conduct: Madras High Court Dismisses Quash Petitions No Legal Evidence Required To Forward A Person To Trial? Rajasthan HC Slams Police For Implicating Accused In NDPS Case Solely On Co-Accused's Statement Accused Must Be Physically Present In Court To Furnish Bonds Under Section 91 BNSS: Punjab & Haryana High Court

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