MANJUNATH BASANNA Vs. POLICE INSPECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. R. Desai, learned Counsel for the applicant and Mr. P. Faldessai, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the respondents.

(2.) This is an application for bail. The applicant was arrested on 6/4/2018 in respect of Crime No. 8 of 2018 registered at Anti Narcotic Cell Police Station, Panaji Goa for the offence punishable under Sec. 22 (c) of the Narcotic Drugs Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. Trial is pending in the Special Criminal Case (NDPS) No. 36 of 2018 before the Principal Sessions Judge, North Goa, Panaji. The applicant who was found in possession of 20 gms of MDMA. The commercial quantity prescribed for under the said Act is 10 gms and above. The applicant was thus found in possession of commercial quantity. The learned counsel for the applicant has mainly urged that the applicant is entitled for bail on the ground of long incarceration. In support of his submission, the learned counsel relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Mohd. Muslim alias Hussain Vs State(NCT of Delhi), 2023 SCC Online Sc 352. Paragraphs 2 and 3 read thus:- 2 Long back, in Hussainara Khatoon v. Home Secy., State of Bihar 1 this court had declared that the right to speedy trial of offenders facing criminal charges is "implicit in the broad sweep and content of Article 21 as interpreted by this Court". Remarking that a valid procedure under Article 21 is one which contains a procedure that is "reasonable, fair and just" it was held that: "Now obviously procedure prescribed by law for depriving a person of liberty cannot be "reasonable, fair or just" unless that procedure ensures a speedy trial for determination of the guilt of such person. No procedure which does not ensure a reasonably quick trial can be regarded as "reasonable, fair or just" and it would fall foul of Article 21. There can, therefore, be no doubt that speedy trial, and by speedy trial we mean reasonably expeditious trial, is an integral and essential part of the fundamental right to life and liberty enshrined in Article 21. The question which would, however, arise is as to what would be the consequence if a person accused of an offence is denied speedy trial and is sought to be deprived of his liberty by imprisonment as a result of a long delayed trial in violation of his fundamental right under Article 21."

(3.) These observations have resonated, time and again, in several judgments, such as Kadra Pahadiya v. State of Bihar 2 and Abdul Rehman Antulay v. R.S. Nayak 3; in the latter the court re-emphasized the right to speedy trial, and further held that an accused, facing prolonged trial, has no option: