HC calls for special NDPS courts

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has called for the establishment of special NDPS courts in Punjab, Haryana and Chandigarh. A Division Bench of the high court made it clear that the direction was being issued keeping in view the critical need for these courts to ensure swift conclusion of trials involving cases where accused were charged with conscious and exclusive possession of commercial quantities of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances.

The Bench of Justice Sureshwar Thakur and Justice Sudeepti Sharma asserted these courts would address the delays in the judicial process that often hindered the timely dispensation of justice. “There is dire necessity of making Special NDPS Courts in the States of Punjab, Haryana and Union Territory Chandigarh. As such, this court humbly requests the Chief Justice to take up the matter with the state governments concerned so that special courts for trying NDPS offences are created,” the court asserted.

The Bench was hearing a reference arising from an order pronounced on December 1, 2022, in a case involving commercial quantity of contraband. The court, in its order, had dismissed a bail petition in the matter as stringent conditions prescribed under Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act were not satisfied.

The question before the Bench was whether extended delays in trials could mitigate the strict statutory prohibition against granting bail. The court, in the process, deliberated on the twin conditions set forth in Section 37 of the Act, which required presence of reasonable grounds to believe that the accused had not committed the offence and was unlikely to commit the same while on bail.

The Bench noted that the conditions were to be satisfied before bail could be granted in cases involving commercial quantities. The court emphasised: “The twin conditions enshrined in the statutory provisions… are required to be satisfied from the evidence existing on record before the court concerned.”

The Bench at the same time added that an accused was not automatically disqualified from being granted bail even if the public prosecutor succeeded in establishing the twin conditions. This was because the right to a speedy trial was a cornerstone of Article 21, thereby causing the stringent rigour of the statutory provision to be diminished or softened.

Referring to the challenges faced by the judiciary in dealing with the heavy docket of sub judice cases, the Bench observed the delays in trial could not be solely attributed to the trial courts, but must also be shared by the prosecution and the accused.

In an attempt to mitigate delays, the Bench, among other things, suggested that prosecution witnesses unable to appear due to transfers or other reasons could have their evidence recorded via videoconferencing with defence consents. This, the Bench added, would ensure expeditious trial in NDPS cases and prevent accused from claiming the right to bail due to delays.