The Jammu and Kashmir High Court ruled that arresting an accused under a new charge 15 years after granting bail in the same FIR violates fundamental rights. The court granted anticipatory bail, citing an unreasonable delay in the investigation.
Background
An FIR was registered against the petitioner at a police station under Sections 6/13 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act. It was also registered under 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act. Authorities arrested him but granted bail the next day. Despite this, the investigation continued for nearly 15 years.
At the end of this long probe, police added charges under Sections 8/21 of the NDPS Act. They presented a final report before the Special Judge under the NDPS Act, Anantnag. However, the trial court rejected the report. The petitioner then sought to quash the FIR under Section 482 CrPC, arguing that the delayed charges amounted to abuse of the legal process.
Court Ruling
Justice Mohd Yousuf Wani ruled that the arrest of the petitioner under Section 21 of the NDPS Act, after already being arrested in the same FIR, would be a serious violation of his fundamental rights. The court granted him anticipatory bail. It was emphasized that if authorities did not find a need to arrest him under the NDPS Act for 15 years, there was no reason to do so now.
The court directed the concerned SHO that if the petitioner is arrested under Sections 8/21 of the NDPS Act, he must be released upon furnishing surety and personal bonds worth ₹20,000 each.
Key Observations
The trial court rejected the final report, stating that the case initially fell under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act. Authorities later added NDPS Act charges only at the final stage of the probe.
The court highlighted that the alleged recovery of 35 bottles of 100 ml Codeine Phosphate mixture falls under the “small quantity” category. This reduces the severity of the NDPS Act charges.
The legal position at the time of the FIR’s registration requires the actual narcotic content in a mixture. This is to determine if the quantity is commercial or otherwise.
The court noted that the prolonged investigation did not justify a sudden arrest under the NDPS Act after 15 years.
Conclusion
The court’s ruling reinforces the right to liberty and protection from arbitrary arrests. Delayed charges and extended investigations cannot justify fresh arrests when bail has already been granted. This decision sets a precedent for similar cases involving delayed legal proceedings.
