2016 (8) TMI 1050 - HC - Indian Laws

Seeking to cancel the bail granted to the respondent by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge (Special Court for E.C. and NDPS Act cases - bail granted on medical terms - Held that - From the materials available on record, it is seen that the respondent has committed a heinous crime against the society. As per Section 37 of NDPS Act, there is a bar for grant of bail to accused person, who is in possession of commercial quantity. The learned Additional District and Sessions Judge has not considered the gravity of offence and provisions of Section 37 of NDPS Act and the fact that the allegation against the respondent is, he was dealing and making arrangement for transporting contraband for more than commercial quantity. The learned Additional District and Sessions Judge has not considered these aspects and enlarged the respondent on bail on the sole ground that he is suffering from diabetes and he needs treatment and personal care by his wife. The Hon ble Apex Court in a number of judgments, especially in the judgments reported Kanwar Singh Meena Vs. State of Rajasthan and another 2012 (10) TMI 1114 - SUPREME COURT and Neeru Yadav Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another 2015 (9) TMI 1430 - SUPREME COURT has held that the order enlarging the accused person on bail or granting anticipatory bail without considering the serious allegation made against the accused person and without considering as to whether any prima facie case has been made out and quantum of punishment that may be imposed, then the said order is illegal. The ratio in the above judgments and the judgments relied on by the learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the petitioner is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. Hence, the order of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge enlarging the respondent on bail, is illegal and non-est in law. Therefore, this criminal original petition is liable to be allowed. Accordingly, the criminal original petition is allowed and the bail granted to the respondent by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge (Special Court for E.C. and NDPS Act cases), Pudukottai is cancelled.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of bail granted to the respondent.
2. Application of Section 37 of the NDPS Act.
3. Consideration of medical grounds for bail.
4. Evaluation of evidence and voluntary statements.
5. Criteria for cancellation of bail.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of Bail Granted to the Respondent:
The petitioner sought to cancel the bail granted to the respondent by the Additional District and Sessions Judge (Special Court for E.C. and NDPS Act cases), Pudukottai. The prosecution argued that the bail was granted without considering the materials on record, including the voluntary statement of the respondent and the gravity of the offence. The learned Judge granted bail based on the respondent's medical condition (diabetes) and the need for treatment and personal care by his wife, without addressing the legal requirements under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.

2. Application of Section 37 of the NDPS Act:
The prosecution emphasized that the contraband involved was of commercial quantity, attracting Section 37 of the NDPS Act, which imposes stringent conditions for granting bail. The Act requires the accused to prove that they are not guilty of the offence and that they would not commit any offence if released on bail. The prosecution argued that the learned Judge failed to consider these legal provisions and the well-settled guidelines for granting bail.

3. Consideration of Medical Grounds for Bail:
The learned Judge granted bail based on the respondent's medical condition, specifically diabetes. However, the prosecution contended that medical grounds alone are insufficient to override the stringent conditions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act. The Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the accused must prove both the ingredients of not being guilty and not likely to commit an offence if released on bail.

4. Evaluation of Evidence and Voluntary Statements:
The prosecution presented evidence that the respondent was involved in procuring and transporting Zolfresh Tablets containing Zolpidem, a psychotropic substance. The respondent's voluntary statement admitted knowledge of the illegal nature of the drugs and their smuggling to Malaysia. The prosecution argued that the evidence established a prima facie case against the respondent, which the learned Judge failed to consider adequately.

5. Criteria for Cancellation of Bail:
The prosecution cited multiple judgments from the Hon'ble Apex Court, emphasizing that the conditions for granting bail under Section 37 of the NDPS Act are cumulative and not alternative. The Court must be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty and not likely to commit any offence while on bail. The prosecution argued that the learned Judge's order was arbitrary and lacked valid reasons, making it illegal and non-est in law.

Conclusion:
The High Court concluded that the order granting bail to the respondent was illegal as it did not consider the gravity of the offence, the provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, and the prima facie case established by the prosecution. The Court allowed the criminal original petition, cancelled the bail granted to the respondent, and emphasized that the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge's order was non-est in law.