9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (1) TMI 1002 - SC - Indian LawsGrant of post-arrest bail - mandate of Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ignored - allegation against the accused respondent (A5) was that he entrusted hashish oil to A1 through A2 for sale in the International market and Crime was registered against him for the offences punishable under Sections 20(b)(ii)(c) and Section 29 of the NDPS Act and after investigation, charge-sheet was filed on 10th May, 2019. HELD THAT - Hashish oil is shown at Sl. No. 13 in the notification dated 19th October, 2001 issued by the Central Government in exercise of power under Section 2(viia) and (xxiiia) of the NDPS Act. Hashish oil above 1 kg is commercial quantity - The jurisdiction of the Court to grant bail is circumscribed by the provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act. It can be granted in case there are reasonable grounds for believing that accused is not guilty of such offence, and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. It is the mandate of the legislature which is required to be followed. At this juncture, a reference to Section 37 of the Act is apposite. That provision makes the offences under the Act cognizable and non-bailable. The expression reasonable grounds means something more than prima facie grounds. It contemplates substantial probable causes for believing that the accused is not guilty of the alleged offence. The reasonable belief contemplated in the provision requires existence of such facts and circumstances as are sufficient in themselves to justify satisfaction that the accused is not guilty of the alleged offence. In the case on hand, the High Court seems to have completely overlooked the underlying object of Section 37 that in addition to the limitations provided under the CrPC, or any other law for the time being in force, regulating the grant of bail, its liberal approach in the matter of bail under the NDPS Act is indeed uncalled for. The appeals are allowed and the impugned order passed by the High Court releasing the respondents on bail is hereby set aside - Bail bonds of the accused respondents stand cancelled and they are directed to be taken into custody.
Issues Involved:
1. Challenge to the High Court's discretion in granting post-arrest bail under Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act. 2. Examination of the High Court's failure to adhere to the mandate of Section 37 NDPS Act. 3. Consideration of previous bail grants to co-accused and their impact on the current case. 4. Allegations of false implication due to prior animosity with excise officials. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Challenge to the High Court's discretion in granting post-arrest bail under Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act: The appellant-prosecution challenged the High Court's decision to grant post-arrest bail to the accused respondents, arguing that the High Court failed to comply with Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act. The High Court granted bail without considering the stringent conditions required under the NDPS Act, which mandates that bail should only be granted if there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty and will not commit any offence while on bail. The Supreme Court emphasized that the conditions for granting bail under the NDPS Act are in addition to the limitations provided under the CrPC. 2. Examination of the High Court's failure to adhere to the mandate of Section 37 NDPS Act: The Supreme Court noted that the High Court did not record a finding as mandated under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, which is essential for granting bail. The High Court's liberal approach in granting bail was deemed inappropriate given the serious nature of the offences under the NDPS Act. The Supreme Court reiterated that the legislative mandate under Section 37 must be strictly followed, and bail should not be granted unless the twin conditions are satisfied. 3. Consideration of previous bail grants to co-accused and their impact on the current case: The respondents argued that other accused persons in Crime No. 14/2018 were granted bail, and no steps were taken by the prosecution to challenge those bail orders. However, the Supreme Court held that the grant of bail to other accused persons does not absolve the act of the accused respondents from the rigour of Section 37 of the NDPS Act. Each case must be considered on its own merits, and the failure to challenge bail for other accused does not justify granting bail in the current case. 4. Allegations of false implication due to prior animosity with excise officials: The respondents claimed that they were falsely implicated due to prior animosity with excise officials, specifically mentioning a corruption case involving an excise official convicted on the respondent's complaint. The Supreme Court found this argument to be speculative and not sufficient to infer false implication. The Court noted that charge-sheets had been filed after investigation in both Crime No. 14/2018 and Crime No. 19/2018, and the matter was listed for framing of charges, where the accused would have an opportunity to present their case. Conclusion: The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, setting aside the High Court's order granting bail. The Court emphasized the necessity of adhering to the stringent conditions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act and directed that the accused respondents be taken into custody. The trial court was instructed to expedite the trial. The judgment underscores the importance of strict compliance with legislative mandates in cases involving serious offences under the NDPS Act.
|
