New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Tuesday granted bail to a man, who has been incarcerated for two years after being booked in a Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act case, saying that "prolonged incarceration militates the basic right of human liberty".
A bench comprising justices J K Maheshwari and K V Viswanathan was hearing a plea filed by Ankur Chaudhary, through advocate Prateek Yadav, challenging the Madhya High Court order, passed on January 2, 2024, dismissing his bail plea in connection with an FIR registered under Sections 8 read with Section 22/29 of the NDPS Act. Senior advocate Siddhartha Dave and advocate Rajesh Ranjan represented Chaudhary before the apex court.
The petitioner’s counsel argued that a substantial period would be required to come to the stage of cross-examination of the investigating officer (IO) as there are approximately 75 witnesses, and till then incarcerating the petitioner for such a long and indefinite period is against the principle of liberty.
The counsel stressed that his client has been incarcerated for over two years now and the high court has patently erred at law, while denying bail, by observing that IO is also a panch witness, and since his examination is pending, bail cannot be granted to the petitioner.
The counsel contended that the high court rejecting the third bail application under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is bad in law. “The impugned order of the high court rejecting the bail petition of the petitioner on the ground that the cross-examination of the Investigating Officer is pending, is misconceived and apparently beyond the scope of criminal jurisprudence”, said the petitioner’s plea.
While granting bail to the petitioner, the bench observed that “prolonged incarceration militates the basic right of human liberty”. Chaudhary’s plea said: “The High Court below ignored the material fact that pursuant to the observations of the Supreme Court upon the application of the petitioner, the panch witnesses have been called, deposed, cross-examined and discharged; however, both the panch witnesses did not support the prosecution theory, and as such, denial of bail to the petitioner is perverse and against the principle of natural justice”.
The plea argued that the petitioner has been arrayed as a co-accused in the charge sheet merely based on a memorandum statement given by the co-accused, which is not admissible in the eyes of law as per the law laid down by the apex court and where there is no specific allegation in the FIR against him.
Read More
