In sovereignty case, personal liberty takes back seat: SC

NEW DELHI: Deliberating on the right of an accused to bail, particularly in serious offences, Supreme Court Tuesday said personal liberty would have to take back seat if it is pitted against India’s sovereignty, and pointed out a lack of uniform application of prolonged incarceration as grounds for bail has resulted in similarly situated persons receiving different outcomes.

“We note that recently this court in ‘Tasleem Ahmed v. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi’ has referred the question concerning the approach of constitutional courts in bail matters under special statutes, where Article 21, prolonged incarceration and statutory restrictions intersect,” a bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and N Kotishwar Singh said. “In view of the said reference, we do not wish to deliberate on this issue further, save and except that in our view paramount consideration is nothing but the interest of justice for all,” it said.

SC cancels bail of man held with 1.5kg heroin
The court said, “In view of the said reference, we do not wish to deliberate on this issue further, save and except that in our view paramount consideration is nothing but the interest of justice for all. Should there be any conflict between the sovereignty of country and personal liberty, undoubtedly, the former shall prevail, particularly, when a war is waged against the nation, be it in the form of supply of drugs, which vitally affects the national economy and health of the people.”

It cancelled the bail of a person accused of running a drug trafficking network in Punjab, who was caught with nearly 1.5kg of heroin. Justices Karol and Singh said incarceration of one year and seven months is not long enough to grant him bail for violation of personal liberty as he could get a maximum sentence of 20 years if found guilty.

The court noted that the issue of bail on the ground of delay in trial and prolonged incarceration has been referred to a larger bench in view of conflicting opinions given by different division benches while interpreting a 2021 three-judge bench order.

In its order, the bench gave a list of seven cases in which bail was granted in some, while in two, bails were cancelled. In all the cases, the period of incarceration was between 2-4 years.

“While this court has recognised on several occasions that prolonged incarceration warrants the grant of bail in view of Article 21 of the Constitution, we have noticed that the application thereof is not uniform. Moreover, there is no doubt that what constitutes ‘prolonged incarceration’ for the purposes of bail has not been expounded by this court or the law of the land,” the bench said.

“While judicial discretion is an important facet of justice dispensation, this court cannot overlook the fact that similarly situated persons in custody may receive different outcomes, dependent on the approach adopted by the respective bench,” it said.

In the present case, the SC said the accused was caught with commercial quantity of narcotics and the mandatory requirements of NDPS Act’s Section 37 ought to be considered. The section says bail can be granted if there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence.