Calcutta High Court Grants Statutory Bail in NDPS Case
- ByAdmin --
- 05 Jun 2025 --
- 0 Comments
In a notable decision, the Calcutta High Court granted statutory bail to an accused arrested under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act. The decision was based on procedural lapses and the failure of the prosecution to adhere to statutory requirements, especially those concerning the timely filing of the charge sheet and ensuring the accused’s legal rights were respected.
Background of the Case
- The accused was arrested on August 13, 2024, by the Kaliachak Police for alleged possession of 1.4 kilograms of brown sugar, an offence under the NDPS Act.
- Under the NDPS Act, the investigating agency is granted 180 days to file a charge sheet. Failure to do so within this period can entitle the accused to statutory bail.
- Two days before the 180-day deadline, the prosecution filed an application for an extension of time on February 7, 2025.
Key Procedural Lapses
- Delayed Notice to Defence: The defense counsel received the notice for the hearing at 4:20 PM—just ten minutes before court closing time—leaving insufficient time to respond or prepare.
- Non-production of the Accused: The accused was neither physically brought to court nor produced via video conferencing for the extension hearing.
- No Opportunity for Fair Hearing: These procedural lapses denied the accused an effective opportunity to present objections against the extension request.
Legal Framework Involved
- Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC): States that if the charge sheet is not filed within 90 days (or 180 days for special laws like the NDPS Act), the accused has a right to be released on statutory bail.
- Section 36A(4) of the NDPS Act, 1985: Allows an extension of the time to file the charge sheet from 90 to 180 days, but only after hearing the accused and recording the reasons for extension.
- Article 21 of the Constitution of India: Guarantees the right to life and personal liberty, which includes the right to a fair and speedy trial.
Court’s Observations
- The High Court observed that the extension of time to file the charge sheet was granted in violation of the legal requirement that the accused must be heard before such an extension.
- Justice Jay Sengupta, who presided over the case, emphasized that the prosecution's failure to produce the accused and to give adequate notice to the defense made the extension invalid.
- The remand and extension were struck down, and the court held that the accused was entitled to statutory bail due to the lapse of the 180-day period without a valid extension.
Broader Implications
- Reinforcement of Accused’s Rights: The ruling underlines the importance of procedural fairness and due process, especially in cases involving stringent laws like the NDPS Act.
- Accountability in Investigation: The judgment sends a message to law enforcement and prosecution agencies to act diligently and follow the legal process strictly.
- Importance of Timely Judicial Review: This case reaffirms the judiciary’s role in protecting individual liberty against procedural delays and administrative negligence.
Conclusion
The Calcutta High Court’s decision to grant statutory bail due to procedural lapses serves as a critical reminder that even in serious cases under special laws like the NDPS Act, legal safeguards and procedural fairness cannot be compromised. Upholding the principle of natural justice, the Court ensured that the accused's right to liberty under Article 21 was not violated by lapses on the part of the prosecution.
RELATED Blog
0 comments