9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (3) TMI 772X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it of Section 37 of the NDPS Act was not kept in view by the High Court. Mere non-compliance of the order passed for supply of copies, if any, cannot as in the instant case entitle an accused to get bail notwithstanding prohibitions contained in Section 37. The case is not one to which the exceptions provided in Section 37 can be applied. Coming to the plea reqarding long passage of time it is to be noted that the two orders passed by this Court in SLP (crl.) do not lay down any principle of law of invariable nature to be universally applied. Furthermore, disposal of SLP against a judgment of the High Court does not mean that the said judgment is affirmed by such dismissal. The order passed in any SLP at threshold without detailed reasons d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he respondent Dilip Pralhad Namade (hereinafter referred to as `the accused') were that he was involved in the manufacturing of mandrax tablets and he is the person who has supplied the technical know how of preparation for the tablets. Officers of the appellant- Bureau , Mumbai Zonal Unit, got information that one Suresh Faturmal Jain was travelling in a red Ford Escort car and was carrying 20,000 Mandrax Tablets to be delivered to two persons at a particular place. Acting on the information, two officers of the Bureau went to the vicinity of the place where the tablets were to be delivered. Two persons were called to act as Panchas. They found that there were three persons travelling in the car. The officers searched the car and arres ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pugned order dated 19.12.2002 the High Court granted bail to the respondent-accused primarily on the term that the direction given by the Special Judge for supply of copies of documents was not complied with, though the bail application was opposed. In support of the appeal Mr. L. Nageshwara Rao, learned Additional Solicitor General submitted that while granting bail the provisions of Section 37 of the Act were not kept in view. There is a prohibition on the grant of bail in terms of Section 37 of the NDPS Act and only under the specified conditions bail can be granted. Non-supply of documents pursuant to the court's order is not one of the grounds on which bail can be granted. In fact the High Court recorded a wrong conclusion by obser ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s liberties. He submitted that in two cases i.e. SLP (Crl.) No. 1136/2002 ( N.C.B. vs. Amar Pal Singh ) and SLP(Crl.) No. 434/2003, ( N.C.B. vs. Smt. Hamida Sayyed Ali Shaikh) this Court did not interfere with order granting bail on the sole ground of long passage of time. Therefore, it is submitted that liberty granted to the respondent-accused should not be withdrawn. It would be appropriate to take note of few provisions which have relevance i.e. Section 2(xxiii) defining psychotropic substances , and Section 37 dealing with bail. They read as follows: Section 2(xxiii) psychotropic substance means any substance, natural or synthetic, or any natural material or any salt or preparation of such substance or material included in the list of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... le on bail. The limitations on granting of bail come in only when the question of granting bail arises on merits. Apart from the grant of opportunity to the public prosecutor, the other twin conditions which really have relevance so far the present accused-respondent is concerned, are (1) the satisfaction of the Court that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of the alleged offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. The conditions are cumulative and not alternative. The satisfaction contemplated regarding the accused being not guilty has to be based for reasonable grounds. The expression reasonable grounds means something more than prima facie grounds. It contemplates substant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at the two orders passed by this Court in SLP (crl.) Nos. 1136/2002 and 434/2003 referred to above do not lay down any principle of law of invariable nature to be universally applied. Furthermore, disposal of SLP against a judgment of the High Court does not mean that the said judgment is affirmed by such dismissal. The order passed in any SLP at threshold without detailed reasons does not constitute any declaration of law or constitute a binding precedent. (see Union of India and others vs. Jaipal Singh 2003(7) Supreme 676). This court cannot and does not reverse or modify the decree or order appealed against while deciding the petition for special leave to appeal and that too when the SLP was being dismissed. What is impugned before this ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
