2017 (9) TMI 1445 - SC - Indian Laws

Offences under Section 37 of the NDPS Act - bail application - HC 2014 (9) TMI 1126 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT held that further detention of the accused/petitioners is not necessary and to be released on bail bond - Held that - The accusation in the present case is with regard to the fourth factor namely, commercial quantity. Be that as it may, once the Public Prosecutor opposes the application for bail to a person accused of the enumerated offences under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, in case, the court proposes to grant bail to such a person, two conditions are to be mandatorily satisfied in addition to the normal requirements under the provisions of the Cr.P.C. or any other enactment. (1) The court must be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the person is not guilty of such offence; (2) that person is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. There is no such consideration with regard to the mandatory requirements, while releasing the respondents on bail. Hence, we are satisfied that the matter needs to be considered afresh by the High Court. The impugned order is set aside and the matter is remitted to the High Court for fresh consideration. It will be open to the parties to take all available contentions before the High Court.

Summary

Issues:
1. Bail granted without considering special conditions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.
2. Absconding of one of the respondents.

Analysis:
1. The appellant challenged the High Court's order granting bail to the respondents in an NDPS case without considering the special conditions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act. The High Court released the respondents based on factors such as completion of investigation, submission of chargesheet, and seizure of the consignment. However, the Solicitor General argued that Section 37 imposes additional limitations on granting bail for certain offenses, including those involving commercial quantity. The court highlighted the mandatory requirements under Section 37, emphasizing that bail cannot be granted unless the court is satisfied that the accused is not guilty and is unlikely to commit further offenses while on bail. The court found that the High Court did not address these mandatory requirements, leading to the decision to set aside the impugned order and remit the matter back to the High Court for fresh consideration.

2. It was noted that one of the respondents was absconding, adding a layer of complexity to the case. The Supreme Court directed the High Court to reexamine the matter, allowing both parties to present their arguments. The High Court was instructed to issue a new order within six months, considering all available contentions. Pending the High Court's decision and considering that charges had not been framed yet, the court granted interim bail to one of the respondents. The appeal was disposed of with these directions, emphasizing the need for the High Court to thoroughly review the case in light of the legal provisions under the NDPS Act.