The bench noted that the accused had been in jail for over 5.2 years, yet the trial in the case had not even begun, despite the First Information Report (FIR) being filed in 2019.
New Delhi – The Supreme Court of India has granted bail to a man who was arrested in a drug-related case in Greater Noida, Uttar Pradesh, and had been in jail for more than 5 years without the start of his trial.
ALSO READ: Breaking Bad & Narcos Cited By Supreme Court To Deny Bail To Drugs Case Accused
The top court said that someone cannot be kept behind bars for such a long time without trial, and such incarceration should not be treated like a punishment.
The case was heard by a bench comprising Justice B R Gavai and Justice Augustine George Masih.
The bench noted that the accused had been in jail for over 5.2 years, yet the trial in the case had not even begun, despite the First Information Report (FIR) being filed in 2019.
Quoting its earlier decisions, the Supreme Court said:
“This court, in a catena of cases, has held that a prolonged incarceration without commencement of trial, cannot be permitted to result in a sentence without trial.”
The accused had approached the Supreme Court after the Allahabad High Court had rejected his bail plea in March last year. The high court had refused his request, even though he had been in custody since January 2019, under charges framed under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act. The drugs allegedly recovered in the case included 150 kilograms of marijuana (ganja).
ALSO READ: Synthetic Drug & Ganja Has Reached Schools: Kerala High Court Over 330% Rise In Cases
In the high court, the man’s lawyer had argued that the accused was not arrested from the place where the contraband was found and that all the other co-accused had already been granted bail. He requested bail for the accused on the ground of parity, meaning that he should also be given the same treatment as the other accused.
However, in the Supreme Court, the state government opposed the bail, arguing that one of the co-accused who had been released on bail earlier was not attending court proceedings.
Responding to this, the top court said:
“However, the petitioner cannot be penalised solely on the ground that the co-accused is not attending the court.”
The bench further said:
“The state was always at liberty to take steps for cancellation of the bail.”
Taking all the facts into account, including the long delay in the start of the trial, the Supreme Court finally ordered that the petitioner be released on bail, with conditions to be imposed by the trial court.
