The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court recently held that a trial court cannot mechanically postpone the conclusion of a criminal trial under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act merely because a supplementary complaint has been filed against another accused at a later stage. The Court observed that once evidence against an accused has been completed, the trial court must independently examine whether the newly added accused should be tried together or separately. If a separate trial is appropriate, the original proceedings must continue without unnecessary delay.
The judgment was delivered by Justice Rajnesh Oswal while deciding a bail application filed by an accused facing prosecution under Sections 8 and 20 of the NDPS Act. The accused had remained in custody for nearly five years and argued that keeping the trial pending indefinitely due to proceedings against another person violated his right to a speedy trial. Although the Court rejected the bail plea due to the restrictions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, it directed the trial court to reconsider its decision to keep the proceedings in abeyance.
The case arose from an NDPS prosecution in which the petitioner was allegedly found carrying approximately 5.4 kilograms of charas, a quantity falling within the category of commercial quantity under the NDPS Act. According to the prosecution, the contraband was recovered from a shoulder bag allegedly carried by the petitioner while travelling from Anantnag to Surat. Following investigation, the prosecution filed a complaint and charges were framed against the accused under the relevant provisions of the NDPS Act.
During the course of the trial, the prosecution completed its evidence on 6 November 2024. Thereafter, the statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded on 9 December 2024. The matter had reached the stage of final arguments, indicating that the trial against the petitioner was substantially complete.
However, before the final arguments could conclude, the prosecution informed the trial court that a supplementary complaint had been filed against another person, alleged to be the supplier of the contraband. Based on this development, the trial court deferred the proceedings against the petitioner and kept the matter pending until the supplementary proceedings progressed.
The petitioner challenged this approach before the High Court and argued that the delay was unjustified. It was submitted that the prosecution evidence against him was already complete and that he should not remain incarcerated indefinitely because of a separate proceeding initiated against another accused. The petitioner contended that the continuation of custody in such circumstances amounted to denial of the constitutional right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution.
The Narcotics Control Bureau opposed the bail application and argued that the recovery involved commercial quantity of narcotics. It relied upon the strict conditions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, which place significant restrictions on grant of bail in cases involving commercial quantity. The prosecution argued that prolonged custody alone could not justify release when statutory restrictions applied.
While considering the matter, the High Court examined whether the trial court was legally justified in stopping the proceedings against the petitioner. The Court observed that the supplementary complaint filed against the alleged supplier did not contain any new allegations against the petitioner. Rather, the original prosecution case itself stated that the petitioner had allegedly obtained the contraband from that person.
The Bench found that the supplementary complaint had been filed in March 2025, but the proceedings against the newly added accused had not progressed substantially. The Court noted that even arguments on charge or discharge in the supplementary complaint had not been completed, yet the main trial against the petitioner had been kept pending.
The High Court criticised the trial court’s approach and observed that the proceedings had been deferred in a mechanical manner. The Court held that the trial court had not passed a reasoned judicial order determining whether postponement of the proceedings was legally necessary. Instead, the decision was based mainly on submissions made by the prosecution and an earlier concession by the defence.
The Court emphasised that criminal trials, particularly under the NDPS Act, require expeditious completion because the Act provides severe punishments and imposes strict limitations on bail. Delaying the conclusion of proceedings without sufficient legal justification can cause serious prejudice to an accused who remains in custody.
The High Court referred to the Supreme Court judgment in Sukhpal Singh Khaira v. State of Punjab, which dealt with the issue of adding additional accused during trial. The Supreme Court had held that when an additional accused is brought into proceedings, the trial court must determine whether the newly added accused should be tried jointly with the existing accused or through a separate trial.
Applying this principle, the J&K High Court held that the same approach applies when a supplementary complaint is filed against another accused. The trial court must examine whether joint trial is necessary. If separate proceedings are appropriate, there is no legal obstacle to completing the original trial independently.
The Court observed that the presence of another accused does not automatically require suspension of proceedings against an accused whose trial has already reached the final stage. A criminal case cannot remain indefinitely pending simply because prosecution proceedings against another person are continuing separately.
The judgment also highlights the importance of judicial discretion. The trial court is not required to follow a fixed rule in every case; instead, it must consider the facts, the stage of proceedings, the relationship between accused persons, and whether a joint trial is legally necessary. However, such a decision must be based on proper reasoning and not on a mechanical assumption that all accused persons must always be tried together.
Although the High Court refused to grant bail, it provided relief by directing the trial court to reconsider the decision to keep the proceedings pending within fifteen days. The Court further directed that proceedings relating to the supplementary complaint against the co-accused should also be progressed expeditiously.
The ruling is significant for NDPS cases where investigations often continue after the filing of the initial complaint and additional accused persons may be brought into the proceedings later. The judgment makes clear that such developments cannot become a reason for indefinite delay in concluding the trial of an accused whose case is already ready for final adjudication.
The decision also reinforces the constitutional principle of speedy justice. While courts must ensure that all accused persons receive a fair trial, the process cannot become a source of prolonged incarceration without a proper legal basis.
In conclusion, the Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court held that a trial court cannot automatically keep an NDPS trial pending merely because a supplementary complaint against a co-accused is pending. The trial court must decide whether a joint trial is required or whether the cases should proceed separately. The judgment protects the right to timely completion of criminal proceedings while maintaining the statutory requirements applicable to NDPS offences.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.