2009 (1) TMI 844 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad suspending the sentence awarded by the trial Court to the respondent for having committed offences under Sections 8/27A and 8/29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short the NDPS Act ) and granting him bail? Whether the High Court, while accepting the prayer for grant of bail, had kept in view the parameters of Section 37 of the NDPS Act? Whether there is reasonable ground for believing that the accused is not guilty of the offence(s) he is charged with and further that he is not likely to commit an offence under the said Act while on bail?

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to the order suspending the sentence and granting bail based on the NDPS Act's parameters.

Analysis:
The Supreme Court addressed the challenge brought by the Union of India against the High Court's order suspending the sentence and granting bail to the respondent convicted under the NDPS Act. The Trial Court had sentenced the respondent for offences under Sections 8/27A and 8/29 of the NDPS Act. The High Court, in its order, considered the respondent's time spent in jail and the delay in appeal hearings as reasons for granting bail. However, the Supreme Court found that the High Court had overlooked the mandatory provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act while granting bail.

The Supreme Court emphasized that bail considerations for non-bailable offences under special statutes like the NDPS Act must adhere to specific statutory provisions. Section 37 of the NDPS Act lays down conditions for granting bail, including the satisfaction of the Court that there are reasonable grounds to believe the accused is not guilty and will not commit further offences while on bail. The Court clarified that the satisfaction of the Court regarding the accused's innocence must be based on substantial probable causes, not a detailed examination of evidence.

In this case, the Supreme Court observed that the High Court's decision to grant bail based on the lack of evidence found in the respondent's possession and the delay in appeal hearings did not meet the requirements of Section 37 of the NDPS Act. The Court held that these reasons were insufficient to satisfy the statutory conditions for granting bail under the Act. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order and remitted the matter back for fresh consideration, directing the respondent to surrender to custody before the bail application is reviewed.

The Supreme Court's decision underscored the importance of adhering to the specific provisions of the NDPS Act while granting bail in cases involving offences under the Act. The judgment clarified that bail decisions must align with the statutory requirements outlined in Section 37 to ensure the proper application of the law in such cases.