THANA SINGH Vs. CENTRAL BUREAU OF NARCOTICS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order, and its accompanying directions, are an outcome of the bail matter in Thana Singh Vs. Central Bureau of Narcotics listed before this bench, wherein an accused, who had been languishing in prison for more than twelve years, awaiting the commencement of his trial for an offence under the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the "NDPS Act"), was consistently denied bail, even by the High Court. Significantly, the maximum punishment for the offence the accused was incarcerated for, is twenty years; hence, the undertrial had remained in detention for a period exceeding one-half of the maximum period of imprisonment. An express pronouncement of this Court in the case of Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee Representing Undertrial Prisoners Vs. Union of India & Ors., 1994 6 SCC 731 which held that "where the undertrial accused is charged with an offence(s) under the Act punishable with minimum imprisonment of ten years and a minimum fine of rupees one lakh, such an undertrial shall be released on bail if he has been in jail for not less than five years provided he furnishes bail in the sum of rupees one lakh with two sureties for like amount", finds constrained applicability in respect of cases under the NDPS Act, in light of Section 37 of the Act.

(2.) We are reminded of Justice Felix Frankfurter's immortal words in Antonio Richard Rochin Vs. People of the State of California,1951 96 LEd 183 coincidentally a case pertaining to narcotics, wherein he described some types of conduct by state agents, although not specifically prohibited by explicit language in the Constitution, as those that "shock the conscience" in that they offend "those canons of decency and fairness which express the notions of justice." Due process of law requires the state to observe those principles that are "so rooted in the traditions and conscience of our people as to be ranked as fundamental." The general state of affairs pertaining to trials of offences under the NDPS Act deserves a similar description.

(3.) The laxity with which we throw citizens into prison reflects our lack of appreciation for the tribulations of incarceration; the callousness with which we leave them there reflects our lack of deference for humanity. It also reflects our imprudence when our prisons are bursting at their seams. For the prisoner himself, imprisonment for the purposes of trial is as ignoble as imprisonment on conviction for an offence, since the damning finger and opprobrious eyes of society draw no difference between the two. The plight of the undertrial seems to gain focus only on a solicitous inquiry by this Court, and soon after, quickly fades into the backdrop.