The Supreme Court recently ruled in favour of a Ugandan woman who had been kept in jail despite being granted bail in a case under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances NDPS Act (1985), as she was unable to provide a solvent surety.

Allowing her release on a personal bond, the Court observed that Article 21 of the Constitution extends to foreigners as well.

The Court held that:

“Once an accused has been able to make out a case for bail, then factors like financial difficulties etc. should not come in the way of an accused in getting himself or herself released on bail.”

Background of the Case:

A bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and KV Viswanathan noted that the  Ugandan woman was still lodged  in prison in Tihar Jail because she could not provide one solvent surety, which had been made a condition for bail by the Delhi High Court. The Court was hearing an appeal filed by the Customs Department against the High Court’s decision granting her bail in an NDPS case.

Granting her relief, the bench observed  that:

“This is an issue which requires consideration. At times, an accused may not be in a position to furnish bail and solvent surety of the like amount due to his/her financial constraints etc. Here is a case of a lady accused who is a foreign national. However, the fact remains that Article 21 of the Constitution would apply even to a foreign national sought to be prosecuted as an accused in this country. Once an accused has been able to make out a case for bail, then factors like financial difficulties etc. should not come in the way of an accused in getting himself or herself released on bail.”

Bail Direction:

Recognising that the accused, being a foreign national, would find it difficult to arrange a solvent surety, the bench ordered her release on furnishing a personal bail bond of ₹25,000.

The Court directed:

“We are of the view that the respondent-accused should be asked to furnish a personal bond of an amount of Rs.25,000/- (Rs.Twenty five thousand only). On furnishing a personal bond of Rs.25,000/-, the Jail Authorities shall release her from the Tihar Jail.”

Trial to Continue Independently:

The Court also clarified that the trial court must proceed with the case independently, without being influenced by the High Court’s observations, and that “the guilt or the innocence of the accused shall be determined strictly on the basis of the evidence that may come on record.”

Accordingly, the Appeal was disposed of.

Case Detail: THE CUSTOMS VERSUS FARIDAH NAKANWAGI