9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (5) TMI 1632 - HC - Indian LawsSeeking grant of bail (second bail application) - principles of parity - smuggling of ganja - whether the applicant is entitled to be released on bail only on the ground of parity of bail orders of co-accused which have been passed by the Coordinate Bench without considering the mandatory provisions of Section 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act and without giving reasons? - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT - Before granting bail for the offence under N.D.P.S. Act twin conditions as provided under Section 37(1)(b)(i) and (ii) have to be satisfied which is in addition to Section 439 of Cr.P.C. and mandatory in nature. Having examined the bail orders of co-accused in its entirety it is found there are substance in the submission of learned A.G.A. that co-accused Sonoo Shukla and Praveen Maurya @ Puneet Maurya have been granted bail by the Coordinate Bench of this Court without taking into account the effect and rigour of Section 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act and ignoring the settled law laid down by the Apex Court regarding application of Section 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act whereas recovered quantity is undisputedly is commercial quantity. In the conspectus of the facts of the case Section 50 of the N.D.P.S. Act is also not applicable as the recovery of Ganja was from the dicky of vehicles. There are no reason on merit of the case has been recorded for granting bail to them - considering the recovery of huge quantity of Ganja as mentioned above coupled with the fact that the applicant was apprehended at the spot and was having conscious and constructive possession over the recovered Ganja there are no reasonable ground in terms of Section 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act to hold that the applicant is not guilty of an offence and he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. There are no good ground for enlarging the applicant on bail - The second bail application of the applicant is accordingly rejected.
Issues Involved:
1. Entitlement to bail on the ground of parity. 2. Entitlement to bail due to prolonged incarceration. Issue 1: Entitlement to Bail on the Ground of Parity 7- The issue before the Court is whether the applicant is entitled to be released on bail only on the ground of parity of bail orders dated 14.07.2021 and 14.09.2021 of co-accused Sonoo Shukla and Praveen Maurya @ Puneet Maurya, which have been passed by the Coordinate Bench without considering the mandatory provisions of Section 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act and without giving reasons. 14- The Court finds that co-accused Sonoo Shukla and Praveen Maurya @ Puneet Maurya have been granted bail by the Coordinate Bench without taking into account the effect and rigour of Section 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act and ignoring the settled law laid down by the Apex Court regarding application of Section 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act, whereas recovered quantity is undisputedly commercial quantity. Section 50 of the N.D.P.S. Act is also not applicable as the recovery of 'Ganja' was from the dicky of vehicles. No reason on merit of the case has been recorded for granting bail to them. The Apex Court has deprecated the practice of granting or refusing bail without indicating reason on merit. 15- Such bail orders of the Coordinate Benches, passed without giving reason on merit and without taking note of limitations provided u/s 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act in cases of recovery of contraband of commercial quantity, have no persuasive value and are not binding upon this Court. A judge is not bound to grant bail to an accused on the ground of parity if the order granting bail to an identically placed co-accused contains no cogent reasons or if it has been passed in violation of well-established principles of law. Therefore, the benefit of parity of bail orders dated 14.07.2021 and 14.09.2021 of co-accused Sonoo Shukla and Praveen Maurya @ Puneet Maurya cannot be extended to the present applicant. The issue of parity is decided against the applicant. Issue 2: Entitlement to Bail Due to Prolonged Incarceration16- The applicant's argument for bail based on prolonged incarceration is countered by the learned A.G.A., who cites the case of Union of India v. Rattan Mallik (supra), where the Apex Court observed that long detention in jail does not satisfy the mandatory requirements stipulated in clause (b) of sub-Section (1) of Section 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act. The argument of long detention is not sufficient for bail under the N.D.P.S. Act, as held in several judgments including Vijay Kumar vs. Narendra and others, Ramesh Kumar Singh vs. Jhabbar Singh and others, and Girand Singh vs. State of U.P. The Apex Court in Rajesh Ranjan Yadav @ Pappu Yadav vs. CBI has held that long incarceration alone does not entitle an accused to bail. 18- Considering the recovery of a huge quantity of Ganja, the applicant's apprehension at the spot, and his conscious and constructive possession over the recovered Ganja, the Court does not find any reasonable ground in terms of Section 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act to hold that the applicant is not guilty of an offence and is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. 19- Therefore, the second bail application of the applicant is rejected. Conclusion:20- The findings and observations made are for the limited purpose of deciding the bail application and do not affect the trial Court's independent conclusions based on the evidence led. 21- The trial Court is directed to conclude the trial expeditiously in accordance with Section 309 Cr.P.C without granting unnecessary adjournments. 22- A copy of this order is to be sent to the concerned Court below for compliance.
|
