2004 (3) TMI 772 - SC - Indian Laws

Seeking Grant of bail u/s 37 of the NDPS Act based on non-compliance with court orders - HELD THAT - In the case at hand the High Court seems to have completely overlooked the underlying object of Section 37 and transgressed the limitations statutorily imposed in allowing bail. It did not take note of the confessional statement recorded u/s 67 of the Act. A bare reading of the impugned judgment shows that the scope and ambit of Section 37 of the NDPS Act was not kept in view by the High Court. Mere non-compliance of the order passed for supply of copies, if any, cannot as in the instant case entitle an accused to get bail notwithstanding prohibitions contained in Section 37. The case is not one to which the exceptions provided in Section 37 can be applied. Coming to the plea reqarding long passage of time it is to be noted that the two orders passed by this Court in SLP (crl.) do not lay down any principle of law of invariable nature to be universally applied. Furthermore, disposal of SLP against a judgment of the High Court does not mean that the said judgment is affirmed by such dismissal. The order passed in any SLP at threshold without detailed reasons does not constitute any declaration of law or constitute a binding precedent. This court cannot and does not reverse or modify the decree or order appealed against while deciding the petition for special leave to appeal and that too when the SLP was being dismissed. What is impugned before this Court can be reversed or modified only after granting leave and then assuming appellate jurisdiction over it. If the order impugned before this Court cannot be reversed or modified at the SLP stage obviously that order cannot also be affirmed at the SLP stage (see Kunhayammed and others vs. State of Kerala and another 2000 (7) TMI 67 - SUPREME COURT and Sri Ramnik Vallabhdas Madvane and Ors. vs. Taraben Pravinlal Madhvani 2003 (11) TMI 630 - SUPREME COURT . The inevitable conclusion is that the judgment has no legal sanction. We, therefore, set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court granting bail to the respondent. The respondent-accused is directed to surrender to custody forthwith. Appeal is allowed.

Summary

Issues involved: Grant of bail under Section 37 of the NDPS Act based on non-compliance with court orders.

Summary:
The Supreme Court addressed the issue of bail granted to the respondent, facing trial for NDPS Act violations, by a Bombay High Court judge. The respondent was accused of involvement in manufacturing mandrax tablets and supplying technical know-how. The High Court granted bail primarily due to non-compliance with a Special Judge's order to supply documents. The Narcotics Control Bureau challenged this decision, citing Section 37 of the NDPS Act which restricts bail under specific conditions. The Bureau argued that non-supply of documents does not warrant bail, as they offered inspection to prevent tampering. The respondent's counsel countered, claiming the Bureau's inaction led to the bail grant. The Court emphasized Section 37's limitations on bail, requiring the prosecutor's opposition and satisfaction of the accused's innocence and non-reoffending likelihood. The High Court's oversight of Section 37 and confessional statements led the Supreme Court to set aside the bail grant. The Court clarified that dismissal of SLPs does not affirm judgments and reversed the High Court's decision, directing the respondent to surrender.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's bail grant and directing the respondent-accused to surrender immediately.