Ankur Chaudhary Vs State of Madhya Pradesh (Supreme Court of India)
Summary: The Supreme Court considered the bail petition of Ankur Chaudhary, who had remained in custody for more than two years in connection with FIR No. 305 of 2022 registered at Police Station Chandan Nagar, District Indore, Madhya Pradesh, for offences under Section 8 read with Sections 22 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. The prosecution alleged that Alprazolam powder had been recovered from several accused persons and that the contraband was manufactured in a factory owned by the petitioner. It was further alleged that the petitioner had destroyed material evidence relating to the offence. The related Madhya Pradesh High Court order recorded that the petitioner had been in custody since 29 April 2022 and that the quantity of contraband allegedly involved exceeded the notified commercial quantity.
The petitioner had previously approached the Supreme Court for bail, but his application was not entertained by order dated 15 May 2023. The Supreme Court nevertheless granted liberty to renew the bail request before the Trial Court after examination of the panch witnesses. Subsequently, PW3 Sunderpal Verma and PW4 Vinod Rathore were examined and did not support the prosecution’s case. The petitioner accordingly renewed his bail application, contending that the material circumstances had changed. He also submitted before the High Court that only five out of 75 prosecution witnesses had been examined, that the trial was unlikely to conclude within a reasonable period, and that his continued incarceration was unjustified.
The State opposed the renewed bail application, emphasising the gravity of the allegations, the commercial quantity of contraband and the restrictions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act. It maintained that the investigating officer, Lovekush Prasad, could also be treated as a panch witness and had not yet been examined. Accepting this contention, the Madhya Pradesh High Court rejected the petitioner’s third bail application. It also referred to the rejection of his earlier bail applications and the allegation that he had destroyed evidence. The High Court concluded that the examination of two panch witnesses did not constitute a sufficient change in circumstances to justify granting bail.
The Supreme Court disagreed with the approach adopted by the High Court. It considered the earlier liberty granted to the petitioner to renew his bail application after examination of the panch witnesses and noted that both witnesses had subsequently failed to support the prosecution. On the facts presented, the Supreme Court declined to treat the investigating officer as another panch witness whose examination was necessary before reconsidering bail. The Court further observed that failure to conclude a criminal trial within a reasonable period, resulting in prolonged incarceration, militates against the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. It recognised that conditional liberty may, in appropriate circumstances, be considered notwithstanding the statutory restrictions under Section 37(1)(b) of the NDPS Act.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court allowed the Special Leave Petition and directed that Ankur Chaudhary be released on bail upon furnishing suitable bonds and sureties, subject to conditions determined by the Trial Court. It directed the petitioner to attend trial regularly unless exempted by the Court and clarified that violation of bail conditions could justify appropriate action by the Trial Court. The decision was confined to the petitioner’s entitlement to bail in the circumstances presented; the Supreme Court did not adjudicate his guilt or finally determine the prosecution’s allegations concerning manufacture, possession or destruction of evidence.
FULL TEXT OF THE SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT/ORDER
The petitioner is in custody since last more than two years in connection with FIR No. 305 of 2022 registered at Police Station-Chandan Nagar, District Indore (M.P.) for the offence punishable under Section 8 read with Sections 22 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as “NDPS Act” for brevity).
Previously, when the petitioner approached this Court, vide order dated 15.5.2023, his bail petition was not entertained. However, liberty was granted to approach the trial Court for bail, after the examination of the panch witnesses.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the panch witnesses viz., PW3 (Sunder Pal) and PW4 (Vinod Rathore) have been examined and they have not supported the case of prosecution. On being applied afresh, the trial Court rejected his bail application only on the pretext that the Investigation Officer may also be a panch witness who has yet to examine. The High Court also rejected the bail application affirming those findings by the impugned order.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-State submits that in the facts of this case, the Investigation Officer may be treated as panch witness; therefore, the High Court has rightly rejected the bail application.
Heard learned counsel for the parties. We have considered the facts and all attending circumstances including the period of custody and also the previous orders where this Court while rejecting the bail was of the view that after the panch witness depose, fresh recourse may be taken.
Now, on examination, the panch witnesses have not supported the case of prosecution. On facts, we are not inclined to consider the Investigation Officer as a panch witness. It is to observe that failure to conclude the trial within a reasonable time resulting in prolonged incarceration militates against the precious fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, and as such, conditional liberty overriding the statutory embargo created under Section 37(1)(b) of the NDPS Act may, in such circumstances, be considered.
In view of the above, we are inclined to allow this petition and direct to enlarge the petitioner on bail on furnishing the suitable bail bonds and sureties and on such other terms and conditions as may be deemed fit by the trial Court.
It is needless to observe that the petitioner shall regularly attend the trial until exempted by the orders of the Court. Violation, if any, may give a cause to take recourse as permissible and the trial Court would be at liberty to do the needful.
Accordingly, and in view of the foregoing, this Special Leave Petition stands allowed. Pending applications(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
