9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (12) TMI 1292 - HC - Indian LawsDrugs trafficking - Recovery of illegal drugs - Section 167 (2) of the Cr.P.C. - HELD THAT - On perusal of the said decision rendered by the Hon ble Supreme Court in SARAVANAN VERSUS STATE REPRESENTED BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE 2020 (10) TMI 1249 - SUPREME COURT the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner appears to be correct. The issue involved therein was whether while releasing the appellant accused therein on default bail/statutory bail under Section 167 (2) CR.P.C. any condition of deposit of amount as imposed by the High Court could have been imposed? The answer of the Hon ble Supreme Court was in the negative and held that the only requirement for getting the default bail/statutory bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. is that the accused is in jail for more than 60 or 90 days as the case may be and within 60 or 90 days as the case may be the investigation is not completed and no chargesheet is filed by 60th or 90th day and the accused applies for default bail and is prepared to furnish bail. No other condition of deposit of the alleged amount involved can be imposed. Imposing such condition while releasing the accused on default bail/statutory bail would frustrate the very object and purpose of default bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. The provisions of Section 167 (2) would apply to the accused arrested under the provisions of the ND PS Act - petitioner shall be released on default bail provided he is ready to furnish PR bond to the satisfaction of the Special Judge ND PS Manipur - Bail application allowed.
Issues Involved:
1. Validity and correctness of the order dated 31-08-2020 passed by the Special Judge (NDPS), Manipur. 2. Conditions imposed for bail under Section 167(2) of the Cr.P.C. 3. Applicability of Supreme Court decisions on default bail/statutory bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. 4. Interpretation of Section 441 of the Cr.P.C. and Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 5. Relevance of Supreme Court decisions in Saravanan Vs. State and Union of India Vs. Thamisharasi & ors. Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity and Correctness of the Order Dated 31-08-2020: The petitioner challenged the order dated 31-08-2020 passed by the Special Judge (NDPS), Manipur, in Cril. Misc. (B) Case No. 212 of 2020. The petitioner was initially detained by police commandos on 01-03-2020 and later remanded to police custody and subsequently to judicial custody. After the statutory period of 180 days lapsed, the petitioner sought bail under Section 167 (2) of the Cr.P.C., which was granted by the Special Court with conditions including a PR Bond of ?5,00,000/- and a deposit of ?2,00,000/-. The petitioner contended that these conditions were harsh and amounted to a denial of bail. 2. Conditions Imposed for Bail under Section 167(2) of the Cr.P.C.: The petitioner argued that the conditions imposed by the Special Court, specifically the deposit of ?2,00,000/-, were oppressive and not contemplated under Section 441 of the Cr.P.C. The petitioner, being a poor farmer, claimed that such conditions were violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty. 3. Applicability of Supreme Court Decisions on Default Bail/Statutory Bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C.: The petitioner’s counsel referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Saravanan Vs. State, which held that no condition of deposit of an amount could be imposed while granting default bail/statutory bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. The Court noted that the only requirement for default bail is that the accused has been in jail for more than 60 or 90 days, the investigation is not completed, no chargesheet is filed, and the accused applies for bail and is prepared to furnish bail. 4. Interpretation of Section 441 of the Cr.P.C. and Article 21 of the Constitution of India: The Court observed that Section 441 of the Cr.P.C. does not authorize the demanding of cash security by the Special Court. Imposing such conditions would frustrate the purpose of default bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. The Court also emphasized that such conditions violate Article 21 of the Constitution, which ensures that personal liberty cannot be deprived except according to the procedure established by law. 5. Relevance of Supreme Court Decisions in Saravanan Vs. State and Union of India Vs. Thamisharasi & ors: The Court found that the decision in Saravanan was applicable and supported the petitioner's case. The Court also referred to the decision in Union of India Vs. Thamisharasi, which reinforced that Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. applies to the NDPS Act, and no inconsistent provisions exist in the NDPS Act to exclude the applicability of Section 167(2). The limitations on granting bail under Section 37 of the NDPS Act apply only when bail is considered on merits, not when it is automatic due to default in filing the chargesheet. Conclusion: The High Court of Manipur allowed the petition, quashing the impugned order dated 31-08-2020 except for the part granting bail. The Court directed: - The petitioner shall be released on default bail upon furnishing a PR bond to the satisfaction of the Special Judge, ND & PS, Manipur. - The petitioner must cooperate with the investigating agency and report to the concerned police station when called for investigation/interrogation. - Non-cooperation may lead to consequences, including bail cancellation. - The petitioner shall not leave the State of Manipur without the Court's permission.
|
