Judicial Restraint on Witness Multiplication: Bail in NDPS Cases and Right to Speedy Trial Under Article 21

Introduction

The Supreme Court of India has consistently emphasized that prolonged incarceration without trial constitutes a violation of fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. In a recent decision delivered on January 28, 2025, a bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice KV Viswanathan granted bail to an undertrial prisoner who had spent over three and a half years in judicial custody in a case registered under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. The Court’s observation that there is no point in prosecution multiplying witnesses on one and the same issue reflects a growing judicial concern about the efficiency of criminal trials and the burden of unnecessary prolongation on undertrials [1].

The petitioner had been arrested by the Anti-Narcotic Cell, Worli Unit, under Sections 8(b), 22(c), 25, 27-A, and 29 of the NDPS Act for possessing 2,428 kilograms of Mephedrone, a commercial quantity. Despite the gravity of the alleged offense, the Court exercised its discretion to grant bail, primarily because the Trial Court took more than three and a half years to frame charges, and the prosecution intended to examine 159 witnesses. The Court questioned why the prosecution needed to examine such a large number of witnesses when it could establish its case through important witnesses alone [1].

The Constitutional Foundation: Right to Speedy Trial Under Article 21

The right to a speedy trial, though not expressly mentioned in the Constitution of India, has been firmly established as an integral component of the fundamental right to life and personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21. The Supreme Court, in the landmark case of Hussainara Khatoon v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar, held that the right to speedy trial is implicit in Article 21, and any procedure that keeps an accused person in jail for years without trial cannot be regarded as reasonable, just, or fair [2].

In Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, the Supreme Court expanded the interpretation of Article 21, observing that personal liberty is of the widest amplitude and encompasses various rights, including the right to a speedy trial. The Court emphasized that for the deprivation of life and liberty to be constitutional, the procedure established by law must be reasonable, fair, and just [3]. Consequently, any delay that is oppressive, unjustified, or caused by administrative negligence violates Article 21 and entitles the accused to enforce this fundamental right.

In Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab, the Constitution Bench observed that the concept of speedy trial is read into Article 21 as an essential part of the fundamental right to life and liberty. The Court noted that the right to speedy trial begins with the actual restraint imposed by arrest and continues at all stages, including investigation, inquiry, trial, appeal, and revision [4]. This expansive interpretation ensures that the accused is protected from impermissible and avoidable delays at every stage of the criminal justice process.

The NDPS Act and Bail Provisions: Section 37 Analysis

The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, is a stringent legislation enacted to combat drug trafficking and abuse. Section 37 of the NDPS Act imposes rigorous conditions for granting bail, particularly in cases involving commercial quantities of narcotic drugs. Section 37 stipulates that no person accused of offenses under Sections 19, 24, or 27-A, or offenses involving commercial quantity, shall be released on bail unless two twin conditions are satisfied. First, the Public Prosecutor must be given an opportunity to oppose the application for bail. Second, where the Public Prosecutor opposes, the court must be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of such offense and that the accused is not likely to commit any offense while on bail [5].

The Supreme Court in Union of India v. Thamisharasi clarified that the limitations on the power to release on bail under Section 437 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, are like restrictions on that power, whereas the limitations under Section 37 of the NDPS Act are conditions precedent. Under Section 437 of the CrPC, it is for the prosecution to show the existence of reasonable grounds to support the belief in the guilt of the accused. However, under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, it is the accused who must show the existence of grounds for the belief that he is not guilty [6].

Despite the stringent nature of Section 37, the Supreme Court has held that these statutory restrictions do not oust the ability of constitutional courts to grant bail on grounds of violation of Part III of the Constitution, particularly Article 21. In Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb, the Court noted that the appellant had been in jail for more than five years, charges were framed only after several years, and 276 witnesses were still left to be examined. The Court emphasized that liberty granted by Part III of the Constitution covers not only the rights of the accused but also ensures that prolonged incarceration with the unlikelihood of trial being completed in the near future is a good ground to grant bail [7].

Bail Provisions Under the Code of Criminal Procedure: Section 437

Section 437 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, governs the grant of bail in cases of non-bailable offenses when the accused appears before a Court other than the High Court or Court of Session. Section 437(1) provides that such persons may be released on bail, but they shall not be released if there appear reasonable grounds for believing that they have been guilty of an offense punishable with death or imprisonment for life. The proviso to Section 437(1) creates exceptions for vulnerable categories, including persons under sixteen years of age, women, and those who are sick or infirm [8].

Section 437(6) of the CrPC calls for a liberal approach in granting bail when a trial for a non-bailable offense in Magistrate-triable cases is not concluded within sixty days from the first date fixed for taking evidence. The Supreme Court has clarified that this provision is intended to speed up the trial without unnecessarily detaining a person as an undertrial prisoner for a prolonged time. However, the provision is not mandatory but directory, and courts must exercise discretion based on the facts and circumstances of each case.

Judicial Pronouncements on Witness Multiplication and Trial Delays

The Supreme Court has repeatedly expressed concern about the practice of examining an excessive number of witnesses, which unnecessarily prolongs trials and violates the right to speedy trial. In the January 2025 decision, the Court observed that the prosecution should examine important witnesses and try to establish its case rather than multiplying witnesses on one and the same issue. The Court noted that with 159 witnesses left to be examined, even if 50 percent of them were examined, it would take a considerable amount of time, thereby prolonging the trial indefinitely [1].

In Tapas Kumar Palit v. State of Chhattisgarh, delivered on February 14, 2025, the Court granted bail to an undertrial in custody for nearly five years, with 100 witnesses to be examined [9]. Similarly, in Yogesh Narayan Raut v. State of Maharashtra, bail was granted after ten years of custody, with only 21 witnesses examined despite the prolonged incarceration period.

Balancing Liberty and Security: The Principle of Bail as Rule, Jail as Exception

The foundational principle of criminal jurisprudence in India is that bail is the rule and jail is the exception. This principle finds its origin in the presumption of innocence, which holds that every person is innocent until proven guilty. In Sanjay Chandra v. CBI, the Supreme Court observed that an accused is detained not because of guilt but because there are reasonable grounds for the charges that make it proper for them to be tried. The Court emphasized that the exercise of bail powers requires courts to maintain a delicate balance between personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 and the interests of society.

In Manish Sisodia v. State, the Supreme Court held that courts and High Courts have forgotten the well-settled principle that bail is not to be withheld as punishment. The Court observed that from its experience, trial courts and High Courts attempt to play safe in matters of grant of bail, and it is high time that they recognize the principle that bail is rule and jail is exception [8].

The Court in the January 2025 decision reiterated this principle while granting bail to the petitioner. Despite acknowledging the seriousness of the alleged crime under the NDPS Act, the Court held that it should not overlook the fact that the petitioner had been in judicial custody for more than three and a half years and that examination of 159 witnesses would take a considerable amount of time. The Court made it clear that if the petitioner commits any breach of the bail conditions, the bail shall stand automatically cancelled [1].

Impact of Trial Delays on the Criminal Justice System

Trial delays have far-reaching consequences for both the accused and the criminal justice system. Prolonged incarceration leads to prison overcrowding, financial burdens on the state, and erosion of public confidence. The practice of examining excessive witnesses contributes significantly to these delays, increasing risks of witnesses turning hostile and diverting judicial resources. In the present case, the Court questioned the necessity of 159 witnesses when important witnesses could establish the case adequately.

Conditions Imposed While Granting Bail

While granting bail, the Supreme Court imposed several conditions to safeguard the interests of the prosecution. The petitioner was directed not to leave his town of Ankleshwar, State of Gujarat, except for dates of attending the Trial Court. He was required to mark his presence every Sunday at the Ankleshwar City Police Station and surrender his passport before the Trial Court. The Court also gave liberty to the prosecution to impose any particular bail condition to safeguard its interest [1].

These conditions reflect the Court’s attempt to strike a balance between the right to personal liberty and the need to ensure that the accused does not flee or tamper with evidence. The Supreme Court has consistently held that bail conditions cannot be arbitrary or fanciful but must be consistent with the object of granting bail. In Narcotics Control Bureau v. Mohit Agarwal, the Court held that bail conditions must be reasonable and cannot be so onerous as to frustrate the order of granting bail.

Regulatory Framework and Legislative Intent

The regulatory framework governing bail in NDPS cases reflects the legislature’s intent to create a deterrent effect while ensuring constitutional rights are not compromised. The NDPS Act was enacted in 1985 to consolidate and amend the law relating to narcotic drugs and make stringent provisions for control and regulation of operations relating to these substances. However, as the Supreme Court noted in State of Himachal Pradesh v. Pawan Kumar, Section 37 provisions cannot be invoked perpetually to deny bail when there are inordinate trial delays.

Comparative Analysis: Bail in Other Special Statutes

The principles enunciated in NDPS cases have been applied to other special statutes such as the UAPA and PMLA. In K.A. Najeeb v. Union of India, the Court held that Section 43D(5) of the UAPA does not prevent constitutional courts from granting bail on grounds of Article 21 violations. The Court emphasized that prolonged detention without likelihood of trial completion violates the right to speedy trial [7]. These pronouncements reflect a shift towards a more liberal approach to bail in special statute cases, particularly when accused persons have undergone prolonged incarceration.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision to grant bail in the present case, despite the seriousness of the offense under the NDPS Act, underscores the importance of the right to speedy trial as a fundamental component of Article 21. The Court’s observation that there is no point in multiplying witnesses on one and the same issue reflects a pragmatic approach towards ensuring that trials are conducted expeditiously without unnecessary prolongation. The decision reinforces the principle that bail is the rule and jail is the exception, and that prolonged incarceration without trial violates the constitutional guarantee of personal liberty.

The judgment serves as a reminder to prosecuting agencies to be judicious in selecting witnesses and to focus on establishing their case through important witnesses rather than examining an excessive number of witnesses. It also highlights the need for trial courts to expedite proceedings and to ensure that the right to speedy trial is not compromised due to administrative delays or inefficiencies. As the criminal justice system continues to grapple with mounting pendency and overcrowded prisons, the principles enunciated in this judgment provide valuable guidance for balancing the competing interests of liberty and security.

References

[1] LiveLaw. (2025). No Point In Prosecution Multiplying Witnesses On One & Same Issue, Says Supreme Court While Granting Bail Due To Trial Delay. Available at: https://www.livelaw.in/supreme-court/no-point-in-prosecution-multiplying-witnesses-on-one-same-issue-says-supreme-court-while-granting-bail-due-to-trial-delay-521463

[2] iPleaders. (2021). Right to speedy trial: an inalienable right under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. Available at: https://blog.ipleaders.in/right-speedy-trial-inalienable-right-article-21-indian-constitution/

[3] Delhi Law Academy. (2025). Right to Speedy Trial | Article 21 of Constitution. Available at: https://www.delhilawacademy.com/art-21-right-to-speedy-trial/

[4] Le Droit India. (2025). Speedy Trial in India: Legal Framework. Available at: https://ledroitindia.in/speedy-trial-in-india-legal-framework/

[5] The Law Advice. Understanding Section 37 NDPS Act. Available at: https://www.thelawadvice.com/articles/understanding-section-37-ndps-act

[6] Lexology. (2020). Interpreting Section 37 of the NDPS Act, 1985. Available at: https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=fcf53112-281a-4b37-974f-a04f36284a39

[7] Supreme Court Observer. (2025). Bail if Trial is Delayed. Available at: https://www.scobserver.in/supreme-court-observer-law-reports-scolr/bail-if-trial-is-delayed-subhelal-sushil-sahu-v-the-state-of-chhattisgarh-liberal/

[8] Supreme Court Observer. (2024). Supreme Court says Sisodia deprived of right to speedy trial; grants bail. Available at: https://www.scobserver.in/journal/manish-sisodia-deprived-of-his-right-to-speedy-trial-the-supreme-court-holds-grants-bail/

[9] Law Web. (2025). Supreme Court: Public Prosecutor should not examine multiple witnesses to prove one particular fact to ensure speedy trial to accused. Available at: https://www.lawweb.in/2025/12/supreme-court-public-prosecutor-should.html