1999 (8) TMI 950 - SC - Customs

Whether the order passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Lucknow Bench granting bail to respondent No. 1 Ram Samujh Yadav requires to be set aside on the ground that the High Court ignored the provisions of Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act 1985? Held that - The organised activities of the underworld and the clandestine smuggling of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances into this country and illegal trafficking in such drugs and substances have led to drug addiction among a sizeable section of the public particularly the adolescents and students of both sexes and the menace has assumed serious and alarming proportion in the recent years. Therefore in order to effectively control and eradicate this proliferating and booming devastating menace causing deleterious effects and deadly impact on the society as a whole the Parliament in the wisdom has made effective provisions by introducing this Act 81 of 1985 specifying mandatory minimum imprisonment and fine. In the result appeal is allowed. The impugned Order dated 20 August 1998 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Lucknow Bench releasing respondent No. 1 Ram Samujh is quashed and set aside. Respondent No. 1 is directed to surrender.

Summary

Issues:
Whether the High Court's bail order ignored the provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act and the law laid down by the Supreme Court.

Analysis:
The case involved a bail application by respondent No. 1, who was found with 5 Kg of Opium during a raid by the Narcotic Department. The Sessions Judge initially rejected the bail application after considering the prosecution's allegations. However, the High Court granted bail to the respondent based on the reasoning that he had been in jail since the incident and the trial had not concluded.

The Supreme Court highlighted the importance of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, which makes offences under the Act cognizable and non-bailable. This section restricts the grant of bail unless there are reasonable grounds to believe that the accused is not guilty and not likely to commit any offence while on bail. The legislative intent behind this provision was to prevent drug offenders from being released on bail on technical grounds, considering the serious impact of drug trafficking on society.

The Court emphasized the severe consequences of drug trafficking, noting that such activities have led to drug addiction among the public, particularly adolescents. It stressed the need to effectively control and eradicate this menace by imposing mandatory minimum imprisonment and fines under the NDPS Act. The Parliament's intention was clear in not allowing bail for NDPS Act offences unless specific conditions under Section 37 were met.

In this context, the Supreme Court held that the High Court failed to justify deviating from the mandatory conditions for granting bail under the NDPS Act. The Court emphasized that the law should be implemented in line with Parliament's intent to combat the harmful socio-economic consequences and health hazards associated with drug trafficking. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, quashed the High Court's bail order, and directed the respondent to surrender.

This judgment underscores the strict stance taken by the judiciary in cases involving drug offences, emphasizing the need to adhere to the statutory provisions and legislative intent to combat the serious repercussions of drug trafficking on society.