Undue Delay even in NDPS act could be valid ground for granting bail

In the recent case of Anil Malakar v. The State of Assam, the Gauhati High Court granted bail to an accused charged under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act). Justice Arun Dev Choudhury observed that there were no plausible grounds to believe the accused was guilty of the offense.
Justice Choudhury noted that undue delay in the trial process could be a valid reason for granting bail, emphasizing the need for the court to be satisfied that the trial is unlikely to be completed in the near future. Referring to the Supreme Court’s decision in Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI, the court pointed out that the grant of bail based on undue delay in trial is not restricted by Section 37 of the NDPS Act. Instead, Section 436A of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) was applied in Antil, making it applicable to NDPS Act offenses.
The court underscored that a fair and just procedure in a criminal trial is a constitutional obligation of the State, and a speedy trial is a fundamental aspect of the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
Regarding confessional statements under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, Justice Choudhury referred to the precedent set in the case of Pallulabid Ahamed Arimutta, stating that a confessional statement recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act is inadmissible in the trial of an NDPS Act offense. Therefore, such statements, particularly those based on the confessions of co-accused, cannot be grounds for reasonably believing the accused is guilty of the offense.
Consequently, the court, having found reasonable grounds to believe the petitioner was not guilty under the NDPS Act, granted bail.