No Collision? Then Why Did You Flee? — Supreme Court Rejects Truck Driver’s Defence, Upholds Full Liability on Insurer Vicarious Liability Must Be Pleaded With Precision — You Can’t Drag Someone Just Because He Was Once Associated with a Company: Gujarat High Court Quashes Cheque Bounce Case Against Non-Executive Individual Daughters Can’t Be Sidelined in Ancestral Property: Telangana High Court Dismisses Purchaser’s Appeal, Upholds Partition in Favour of Married Women and Legal Heirs Marriage in Arya Samaj Is Valid If Performed as per Vedic Rites — Certificate Alone Is Not Conclusive Proof: Allahabad High Court Refuses to Quash Cruelty Case Even a Mother-in-Law Can Be an Aggrieved Woman: Allahabad High Court Upholds Right to File Domestic Violence Case Against Daughter-in-Law Exemption Under Minority Cannot Be Invoked to Justify Delay in Appeal: Supreme Court Reverses Kerala High Court in Fatal Accident Claim Innocent Flat Buyers Cannot Be Made to Suffer Due to Institutional Failures: Supreme Court on Tamil Nadu Housing Board Land Dispute Decree Can’t Sleep for 18 Years and Wake Up to Claim Land: Telangana High Court Cancels Mutation Based on 1995 Partition Decree Six Years in Custody, Only Two Witnesses Examined—Incarceration Cannot Continue Indefinitely: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Bail in Murder Case Gratuity Is Not a Bounty—It Is Property Under Article 300A: Madhya Pradesh High Court Slams Delay in Payment to Retired Teacher A Small Degree of Scoliosis Cannot Be Stretched To Deny Appointment:  Punjab & Haryana High Court Directs Appointment Of Constable Despite Medical Board’s Earlier Unfitness Declaration Victim’s Statement Under Section 164 CrPC Has No Substantive Value Without Civil Dispute Dressed as Criminal Offence — You Can’t Use FIRs to Fight Over Ancestral Property: Himachal Pradesh High Court Dismisses Plea for Police Action in Family Property Sale Statement of Co-Accused Can Only Be a Clue, Not the Sole Basis for FIR Quashing: Gujarat High Court Declines to Interfere at Investigation Stage Right to Fair Trial Includes Right to Access Digital Evidence: Delhi High Court Directs Supply of Hard Disk Copy to Accused for Effective Defence Allegations of Affixing Counterfeit Mark Amounts to Cheating Under Illustration (b) of Section 415 IPC: Calcutta High Court Refuses to Quash Criminal Proceedings Delivery of Cheque to a Third Party Without Authorization Doesn’t Discharge Liability: Andhra Pradesh High Court Affirms Decree Against L&T Officials

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 News