2007 (9) TMI 614 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether the grant of bail by a learned Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court to the respondent who was charged for alleged commission of offence punishable under Sections 8, 15, 27A and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 incorrect?

Summary

Issues:
Grant of bail under Sections 8, 15, 27A, and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 without satisfying the conditions of Section 37 of the Act.

Analysis:
The appeal challenged the grant of bail by a Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court to the respondent charged under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. The prosecution alleged that the respondent was found in possession of a significant amount of poppy straw, leading to his arrest. The Special Judge (NDPS Act), Varanasi, rejected the bail plea based on the background facts and the severity of the charges. However, the High Court granted bail, noting that the recovery was not from the exclusive possession of the accused and that he had no criminal history.

The appellant contended that the parameters of Section 37 of the Act were not considered while granting bail. Section 37 mandates that a person accused of an offence punishable with imprisonment for five years or more shall not be released on bail unless the Court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe the accused is not guilty and will not commit any offence while on bail. The appellant argued that the High Court failed to establish these grounds before granting bail.

The respondent, on the other hand, argued that the prosecution did not prove exclusive possession and highlighted the lack of a criminal history for the accused. However, the appellant stressed that the High Court's order did not meet the requirements set out in Section 37 of the Act for granting bail in such cases.

The Supreme Court analyzed Section 37 of the Act, emphasizing that bail can only be granted if both conditions are met: the accused is not guilty of the offence charged, and he will not commit any offence while on bail. The Court clarified that the term "reasonable grounds" implies substantial probable causes for believing in the accused's innocence. It further discussed the legal interpretation of the word "reasonable" and its application in determining bail eligibility.

The Court clarified that the purpose of considering bail under Section 37 is not to pronounce a judgment of guilt or innocence but to assess if there are reasonable grounds to believe the accused is not guilty. Additionally, the Court must ensure that the accused is not likely to commit any offence while on bail, based on available evidence.

In this case, the Court found discrepancies in the High Court's decision-making process, especially regarding the lack of clarity on why the contraband items were not considered to be in the exclusive possession of the accused. The Court set aside the High Court's order and directed the accused to surrender to custody for a fresh consideration of the bail application, emphasizing adherence to the provisions of Section 37 of the Act. The Court urged the High Court to expedite the bail application process once the accused surrenders to custody, ultimately allowing the appeal.