Punjab & Haryana HC suspends sentences of 10 NDPS accused owing to prolonged period of incarceration already suffered by them

Read Order: Bhupender Singh v. Narcotic Control Bureau and 26 Other connected matters

Monika Rahar

Chandigarh, January 17,  2022:  While dealing with a total of 27 matters clubbed together, pertaining to NDPS Act, wherein suspension of sentences of accused persons were sought, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has allowed 10 applications on the ground of prolonged period of incarceration that was already suffered by the applicants and the resultant violation of their Right to Life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 

The Division bench of Justice Ajay Tewari and Justice Pankaj Jain granted bail to these 10 applicants by suspending their sentences, while the cases of the remaining 17 applicants were directed for individual hearings. 

All these matters were clubbed together because the counsel for the States argued that the latest decisions of the Supreme Court directed that both for bail and for suspension of sentence under the NDPS Act, the strict parameters of Section 37 had to be met. 

Per contra, counsel for the applicants-appellants argued that the requirements of Section 37 could not be the only consideration for the grant of bail or suspension of sentence.

Both the parties cited numerous decisions of the Supreme Court which defined and upheld an accused person’s right to have access to fair and speedy trial under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. 

After reiterating the findings recorded in many cited cases, the Court referred to the Supreme Court decision pronounced in the year 1994, in the case of the Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee representing Undertrial Prisoners v. Union of India, and observed that it was held in this case that a person who had undergone five years of pre-convict custody was entitled to be released on bail, on the touchstone of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 

“Though this judgment related to undertrials and only one time directions were issued, however, the directions in no way can be said to be against the legislative intent but are in furtherance of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, it will also not be inappropriate if similar principles are followed with some variations and modifications in cases relating to convicts who are languishing in jails for the reasons that their appeals are not likely to be heard for a considerable period”, said the Bench. 

The Court further observed that there was no divergence of opinion as sought to be projected by the counsel for the respondents-States. Where the convict/accused is not able to bring his case within the parameters of Article 21 of the Constitution of India the stringent provisions of Section 37 of the Act have to be applied, opined the Court. 

The Court examined all the 27 cases as per the parameters laid down in the decision of the Apex Court in Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee case(Supra) and in the decision of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in Daler Singh v. State of Punjab.

Thus, those cases where the claim for suspension of sentence was made out on the basis of long custody were disposed of while those cases where the claim was not supported by long custody were segregated and listed for hearing individually.

Thus, sentences of accused persons were suspended in 10 applications while in 17 applications, the matters were directed to be listed for individual hearing by the registry.