Court Says Right to Life and Medical Treatment Must Prevail Where Accused Suffers Serious Ailments; Confirms Interim Bail in NDPS Case
JAMMU, July 25: In a significant ruling balancing the stringent provisions of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act with the constitutional right to life and medical care, the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has held that Section 37 of the NDPS Act cannot operate as an absolute bar to the grant of bail where an accused is suffering from serious and life-threatening medical conditions requiring specialised treatment.
A Single Bench of Justice M. A. Chowdhary, while deciding a bail application, made the interim bail earlier granted to an accused in an NDPS case absolute, observing that the medical condition of an accused is a vital factor that courts must consider while deciding applications for bail.
The case pertained to an accused booked under Sections 8, 15 and 25 of the NDPS Act in connection with the alleged transportation of poppy straw through a vehicle. The prosecution strongly opposed the bail plea, arguing that the stringent restrictions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act were fully applicable and alleging that the accused was involved in organised narcotics activities.
Appearing for the accused, the defence submitted that no contraband had been recovered directly from the accused and that the prosecution case was primarily based on circumstantial evidence. It was further argued that the accused was suffering from acute renal failure and acute epididymo-orchitis, serious medical conditions requiring continuous specialised treatment that could not be adequately provided while in judicial custody.
After examining the medical records placed before the Court, Justice Chowdhary observed that the accused was indeed suffering from severe ailments and noted that continued incarceration could seriously endanger his health and life.
The High Court held that where an accused is battling life-threatening diseases, the rigour of Section 37 of the NDPS Act cannot prevent constitutional courts from granting bail, particularly when denial of bail may adversely affect the accused’s right to proper medical treatment and survival.
The Court also examined the evidence relied upon by the prosecution and observed that the material connecting the accused with the alleged offence was largely based on Call Detail Records (CDRs) indicating telephonic contact with a co-accused. The Court held that such material, without independent corroborative evidence, may not be sufficient at this stage to conclusively establish the accused’s involvement in the alleged offence.
Referring to the landmark judgment of the Supreme Court in Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu, the High Court reiterated that confessional statements recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act are not admissible in evidence against an accused, thereby reinforcing the legal safeguards available during criminal prosecution.
Taking into account the serious medical condition of the accused, the available evidence, and the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the High Court allowed the bail application and confirmed the interim bail earlier granted, subject to the conditions already imposed by the Court.
In its significant observation, the Court held that “Section 37 of the NDPS Act cannot become an impediment where denial of bail may jeopardise an accused’s health and life,” underscoring that the protection of life and access to essential medical treatment remain paramount even in cases involving stringent special statutes.(KNC)
