Read Time: 05 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court has sought an explanation from a trial court from Gujarat after it was pointed out that no recording of evidence of even a single witness took place in a case under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act even after framing of charges in November, 2022.

A bench of Justices J B Pardiwala and Manoj Misra directed its Registry to call for the explanation from the concerned trial court why the trial has not commenced till this date.

The court issued notice to the State of Gujarat returnable within four weeks on a petition filed by Pravinkumar Balwantram Vana (Bisnoi).

The petitioner challenged validity of the High Court's order denying him bail on May 3, 2024.

The petitioner has been charged with the offence punishable under Sections 8(C), 22(C) and 29 respectively of the NDPS Act.

"We are informed that the petitioner is in custody past almost two years and seven months. Till this date, not a single witness has been examined by the prosecution," the bench noted.

The counsel appearing for the petitioner brought to the court's notice that charge came to be framed by the trial court some time in November 2022. 

"We fail to understand that if the charge came to be framed way back in November 2022, why the recording of the evidence has not commenced till this date. This question should have been put by the High Court while passing the impugned order. The trial court owes an explanation in this regard. Registry shall call for the explanation from the concerned trial court why the trial has not commenced till this date," the bench said.

The petitioner was aggrieved with the HC's order rejecting his plea for regular bail.

The High Court's single judge bench of Justice Samir J Dave had noted this is second successive application has been filed under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for regular bail in connection with the complaint of 2021 registered with Puna Police Station, Surat for offences punishable under sections 8(c), 22(C) and 29 of NDPS Act. 

"This court has already dealt with all the submissions made on behalf of advocate for the applicant in the previous bail application, which was filed after filing of the charge-sheet and this is second successive application for regular bail filed by the applicant and no fresh ground is made out to entertain present application. Hence, I do not find any reason to entertain this successive regular bail application of the applicant," the HC's judge had said.