2004 (3) TMI 70 - SC - Customs

Grant of bail to the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the accused ) Held that - This does not appear to be a case where it could be reasonably believed that the accused was not guilty of the alleged offence. Therefore, the grant of bail to the accused was not called for. The impugned order granting bail is set aside and the bail granted is cancelled. The accused-respondent is directed to surrender to custody forthwith. Additionally it shall be open to the Trial Court to issue notice to the surety and in case the accused does not surrender to custody, as directed, to pass appropriate orders so far as the surety and the amount of security are concerned. It is made clear that no final opinion on the merit of the case has been expressed in this judgment, and whatever has been stated is the background of Section 37 of the Act for the purpose of bail. The appeal is allowed.

Summary

Issues:
Grant of bail based on the classification of seized tablets as a psychotropic substance under the NDPS Act.

Detailed Analysis:
The judgment involves the grant of bail to the accused by a Single Judge of the Delhi High Court, which was challenged by Customs authorities due to the recovery of a significant quantity of "Diazepam" tablets from the accused. The accused, a foreign national, was detained by Customs authorities on suspicion of carrying the tablets. The accused admitted to the recovery of the tablets during the investigation. The accused filed a bail application under Section 439 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, claiming that the seized tablets did not fall under the definition of a psychotropic substance as per the NDPS Act. The High Court granted bail to the accused based on the lack of definitive evidence linking the seized tablets to the prohibited substance listed in the Act, despite opposition from the detaining authorities.

In support of the appeal, the Additional Solicitor General argued that the High Court's approach was erroneous as it disregarded the restrictions imposed by Section 37 of the NDPS Act. The authorities contended that the seized tablets matched the description of a prohibited substance listed in the Act and that the laboratory reports were not given due consideration. The appeal highlighted the relevant provisions, including the definition of psychotropic substances under Section 2(xxiii) and Section 37 of the NDPS Act, which outlines the limitations on granting bail for offenses under the Act.

The Supreme Court emphasized that the limitations on granting bail under Section 37 are additional to those provided in the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Court clarified that the satisfaction required for granting bail includes reasonable grounds to believe that the accused is not guilty of the offense and will not commit any offense while on bail. The judgment underscored that the conditions for bail are cumulative, requiring substantial probable causes for believing in the accused's innocence. The Court criticized the High Court for overlooking the confessional statement and the description of the prohibited substance listed in the Act, which was crucial for determining bail eligibility.

Ultimately, the Supreme Court set aside the bail granted by the High Court, directing the accused to surrender to custody immediately. The Court allowed the Trial Court to take appropriate action concerning the surety if the accused fails to comply with the surrender order. It was explicitly stated that the judgment did not express a final opinion on the case's merits but provided a legal background on Section 37 of the NDPS Act in the context of bail proceedings.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, canceling the bail granted to the accused and emphasizing the importance of complying with the stringent bail conditions set forth in the NDPS Act.