Thana Singh v. Central Bureau of Narcotics

This judgment has been summarised by Advocate Swati Sharma , LL.B graduate from the Faculty of Law, University of Delhi

Facts

The case  Thana Singh v. Central Bureau of Narcotics arose from a bail matter under the NDPS Act where the accused had been in custody as an undertrial prisoner for more than 12 years, while the maximum punishment prescribed for the alleged offence was 20 years. Despite prolonged incarceration, bail had been denied in view of the stringent conditions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.

The Supreme Court observed that such long detention without commencement or conclusion of trial raised serious concerns under Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty). The Court also found that similar delays were occurring nationwide in NDPS cases due to systemic problems such as frequent adjournments, lack of special courts, forensic delays, and staff shortages.

Issues

1. Whether prolonged detention of undertrial prisoners under the NDPS Act violates the right to speedy trial under Article 21.
2. Whether Section 37 NDPS Act can justify indefinite pre-trial incarceration.
3. What systemic reforms are necessary to prevent delay in NDPS trials.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court held that:

• The right to speedy trial is part of Article 21, as recognized in Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar.
• Though Section 37 imposes strict conditions on bail, statutory rigour cannot override constitutional protections.
• Reliance was placed on Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee v. Union of India (1994), where it was held that undertrials detained for not less than five years in serious NDPS offences should ordinarily be released on bail.
• When delay is excessive and not attributable to the accused, continued detention becomes unconstitutional and oppressive.
• The State has a constitutional obligation to ensure expeditious NDPS trials.

Thus, prolonged incarceration without trial, especially when it exceeds a substantial portion of the maximum sentence, violates Article 21.

Decision

The Supreme Court granted bail in the concerned matter and, exercising powers under Articles 32 and 141, issued binding directions applicable to NDPS trials across India.

Important Directions Issued by the Court:

Adjournments:

• No adjournment shall be granted in NDPS cases unless circumstances are beyond the control of the party.
• The exception must be strictly construed.
• If hearing dates are fixed as per convenience of counsel, no adjournment shall be allowed.
• Courts must follow the spirit of Section 309 CrPC and ensure day-to-day trial.
• Key Point: Adjournments should not delay NDPS trials.

Examination of Witnesses

• Courts shall adopt the method of “session’s trials”, meaning examination and cross-examination of witnesses should be conducted on consecutive days in block periods (3–4 days).
• Courts must make effective use of Section 293 CrPC by accepting reports of Government scientific experts as evidence to save time.
• Official witnesses may give evidence through affidavits where permissible to avoid delay.

Establishment of Special Courts

• States must establish exclusive NDPS Special Courts in consultation with High Courts.
• The number of courts must be proportionate to pendency.
• Until such courts are established, NDPS cases must be prioritised over other matters.

Forensic Laboratories (Structural Reform)

• More Central Forensic Science Laboratories (CFSLs) must be established.
• States must establish adequate State and Regional FSLs.
• Laboratories must furnish reports expeditiously.
• Equipment must be standardized to prevent inconsistent results.

Filling Vacancies

• Vacancies in scientific and technical staff in forensic labs must be filled urgently.
• Infrastructure and expertise must be improved.

Re-Testing / Re-Sampling of Samples

• The Supreme Court clarified that if an application for re-testing or re-sampling is to be made, it must be filed within 15 days of the receipt of the forensic report. The Court held that such applications should not be entertained at a belated stage of trial. Re-testing is not a matter of right and may be permitted only in exceptional circumstances where there are substantial grounds to doubt the correctness of the original report. The 15-day limitation was prescribed to prevent misuse of re-testing applications as a tactic to delay NDPS trials and to safeguard the right to speedy trial under Article 21.