2023 (5) TMI 1306 - SCH - Indian Laws

Rejection of bail application (second bail application) - HELD THAT - The impugned order shows that what has weighed with the Court is the fact that the co-accused who was released on bail has not surrendered. It is this factor alone which can be discerned to be the reason to not entertain the bail application. The fact that the co-accused who was released on bail has not surrendered cannot be a germane factor to decline bail to the co-accused, namely, the appellant - impugned order is set aside - Appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved: Bail application rejection based on non-surrender of co-accused

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal against the rejection of the appellant's bail application under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. The appellant had been in custody for almost three years, and the impugned order was the second bail application after the earlier one was rejected. The reasoning behind the rejection was the non-surrender of a co-accused who had been granted bail. The Court found this to be an insufficient reason to deny bail to the appellant. The Court directed the High Court to reconsider the bail application, considering that charges had been framed and prosecution witnesses were to be examined. The High Court was urged to expedite the disposal of the application, ideally within two months.

Reasoning for Bail Rejection

The impugned order rejecting the bail application was based on the fact that a co-accused, who had been granted bail, had not surrendered. This was deemed as the primary reason for denying bail to the appellant. However, the Supreme Court held that the non-surrender of the co-accused should not be a decisive factor in refusing bail to the appellant. The Court emphasized that this factor alone was insufficient to justify keeping the appellant in custody, especially considering the circumstances of the case and the progress of the trial.

Directions to the High Court

In light of the inadequacy of the reasoning behind the bail rejection, the Supreme Court set aside the impugned order and instructed the High Court to reexamine the bail application. The High Court was specifically asked to consider the framing of charges and the upcoming examination of prosecution witnesses. The Court stressed the importance of a prompt decision on the bail application, urging the High Court to prioritize the matter and reach a decision within a reasonable timeframe, ideally within two months from the date of the Supreme Court's order.