The Madurai bench of Madras High Court has directed the Narcotics Bureau to pay compensation to the accused for violating his right to speedy trial. Justice GR Swaminathan observed that since bail could not be granted, and the accused could not be discharged due to the severity of the offence, it could not wring its hands in despair while right to speedy trial stood violated.
The petitioner, M Ananthan who had applied for bail before the court, had been in judicial custody since January 2018 and was arrested under provisions of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act.
After considering the materials, the court concluded that a mere look at the statement given by the petitioner reveals his involvement as he was driving the vehicle that was carrying ‘ganja’ and the vehicle belonged to his wife. “I am not in a position to render a finding that the petitioner is not likely to have committed the offences in question,” said the court.
The court observed, “Law mandates that both the parameters laid down in Section 37 of the Act are fulfilled before bail is granted. Since I am unable to record a finding in favour of the petitioner that he is not likely to have committed the offence, I have to necessarily dismiss this bail petition.”
Yet, the court held that the matter does not end there since the petitioner’s fundamental right to speedy trial has been violated. The court pointed out that the petitioner was arrested in January 2018, final report was filed in July 2018, cognisance was taken by court in August 2018, and charges were framed by court in December 2018. The trial was supposed to begin in January 2019 but as was apparent from diary entries, the trial did not begin.
The court held that there is no justification whatsoever for not commencing the trial in time. The court cited the Supreme court judgment in Pankaj Kumar vs. State of Maharashtra and ors (2008) 16 SCC 117 whereby it was held that the right to speedy trial in all criminal prosecutions is an inalienable right under Article 21 of the Constitution. It was also held that in every case, where the court comes to the conclusion that the right to speedy trial of an accused has been infringed, the charges or the conviction, as the case may be, may be quashed unless the court feels that having regard to the nature of offence and other relevant circumstances, quashing of proceedings may not be in the interest of justice.
The court observed that since it is an offence under NDPS and involves commercial activity, it cannot be quashed and neither can bail be granted as provisions under section 37 of the NDPS Act are not fulfilled. However, the court held, “Having noted that the petitioner’s right to speedy trial has been infringed, I cannot wring my hands in despair. The prosecution has to be called to account. It must pay for its lapse.”
The court thus directed the Narcotics Control Bureau to pay Rs. 1 lakh as compensation within 4 weeks, to be paid to the wife of the petitioner. The court also directed the trial court to conclude the trial within 3 months.
It is pertinent to note here that it does not appear from the order that the petitioner/accused had asked for any compensation from the court citing delay in trial. It was a petition for bail under section 439 of CrPC and this order has taken cue from a Supreme Court precedent and in a bid to safeguard the right of the accused to a speedy trial, has made the government authority accountable for delaying the trial.
The complete order may be read here.
Related:
Bombay HC grants 3 weeks anticipatory bail to Nikita Jacob in toolkit case
Delhi riots: Delhi HC grants bail to cab driver as witnesses did not mention his name