Geeta Rao vs. State Of Punjab

Facts

Three petitions were filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking regular bail for petitioners Geeta Rao, Rajesh Verma, and Mandeep Singh in FIR No. 63 dated 27.08.2021, under Sections 22(b) and 29 of the NDPS Act, registered at Police Station Thermal, District Bathinda, Punjab. The FIR alleged recovery of 750 tablets of Tramadol from Mandeep Singh. Subsequently, Rajesh Verma was nominated based on Mandeep Singh's disclosure statement, leading to the recovery of 4000 tablets of Tramadol. Gagan Kumar was then nominated based on Rajesh Verma's statement, with a recovery of 10000 tablets of Tramadol Hydrochloride. Finally, Geeta Rao was nominated based on Gagan Kumar's statement, with a recovery of 135000 tablets of Tramadol Hydrochloride. Geeta Rao is suffering from cancer and has been granted interim bail previously. Rajesh Verma claims his nomination was solely on a co-accused's disclosure statement. Mandeep Singh argues no recovery was from his conscious possession.

Held

The Court allowed the petitions for regular bail for all three petitioners. Regarding the first issue concerning Section 37 of the NDPS Act, the Court, in light of the Supreme Court's pronouncements in Mohd. Muslim @ Hussain and Rabi Prakash v. State of Odisha, held that prolonged incarceration generally militates against the fundamental right under Article 21. The Court found that the conditional liberty must override the statutory embargo created under Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act when an accused has spent significant time in custody. For the second issue of delayed trial, the Court noted the lack of justification from the State counsel for the delay of approximately 1 year and 8 months after framing of charges, with only one witness partly examined. Citing the Supreme Court's emphasis in Satender Kumar Antil that an accused should not suffer for delays not occasioned by their fault, the Court concluded that considering the totality of facts and circumstances, including the medical condition of Geeta Rao, the nature of allegations against Rajesh Verma, and the custody period of Mandeep Singh, all three petitioners deserved the concession of regular bail. The Court explicitly stated that its observations were not an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioners are entitled to regular bail in light of the alleged recovery of contraband under the NDPS Act, considering the provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act? 2. Whether the prolonged delay in the trial, with no prosecution witnesses examined for approximately 1 year and 8 months after framing of charges, warrants the grant of regular bail? Petitioner's Arguments: - Geeta Rao: She is suffering from cancer and has undergone chemotherapy, having been granted interim bail previously. She also claims to possess a valid license and a GST certificate for the tablets, the validity of which can be examined at trial. Her custody period is significant, and she has clean antecedents. - Rajesh Verma: His nomination is based solely on a co-accused's disclosure statement, with no other connecting evidence. He has clean antecedents and has been incarcerated for 1 year and 10 months. The trial is not progressing. - Mandeep Singh: He claims false implication, with no recovery from his conscious possession, but rather scattered tablets. He has a prior conviction for a short duration under the NDPS Act. He has been in custody for 1 year and 10 months. - All Petitioners Jointly: The trial is significantly delayed, with only one witness partly examined after 1 year and 8 months post-charge framing. They rely on Supreme Court judgments in Satender Kumar Antil, Mohd. Muslim @ Hussain, and Rabi Prakash v. State of Odisha regarding delay in trial and the interpretation of Section 37 of the NDPS Act. Respondent's (State of Punjab) Arguments: - The judgment notes that learned State counsel was heard regarding the twin conditions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, and for the first condition (compliance by the court), it was deemed met. However, the judgment does not explicitly record detailed arguments from the State regarding the second condition or the delay in trial, other than stating they were heard.