Supreme Court Urges Caution in Granting Bail for Major Narcotics Cases: Recent ruling overturns High Court’s decision, emphasizing careful consideration and criticizing unconventional conditions. Accused directed to surrender within 10 days.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
The Supreme Court has issued a noteworthy observation regarding the judicious granting of bail in cases involving the recovery of substantial amounts of narcotic substances by the accused. The bench, comprising Justices B.R Gavai and Sandeep Mehta, reversed a decision by the High Court, emphasizing the importance of meticulous consideration in such matters.
The specific case under scrutiny involved anticipatory bail granted by the High Court to an accused against whom an FIR was filed for conspiring in the procurement/supply of a staggering 232.5 Kg of ganja. The Supreme Court, in its ruling, expressed dissatisfaction with the High Court’s decision, noting the omission of key considerations.
ALSO READ: Supreme Court’s : No Fresh Poll, Calls for Transparency in Chandigarh Mayoral Election Dispute
“The High Court also failed to consider the fact that the accused has criminal antecedents and was already arraigned in two previous cases under the NDPS Act,”
– highlighted Justice Sandeep Mehta in the judgment.
The accused faced charges under Sections 8(c), 20(b)(ii)(c), and 29(1) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. The allegation involved a conspiracy for the procurement/supply of ganja recovered from other accused individuals. Despite opposition from the Public Prosecutor in the High Court, anticipatory bail was granted, prompting the State to file a criminal appeal against this decision.
Upon reviewing the High Court’s order and referencing Section 37 of the NDPS Act, the Supreme Court underscored the mandatory requirement for the court to record satisfaction when opposing bail.
ALSO READ: Supreme Court: Singapore-based Firm Temporarily Pause Defamation Case Against Dr. Subramanian Swamy
Section 37 of the NDPS Act–
All offenses under this Act are both cognizable and non-bailable, regardless of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Offenses under section 19, section 24, or section 27A, especially those involving a commercial quantity, deny the accused bail unless the Public Prosecutor is given a chance to oppose, and the court is convinced of the accused’s innocence and the absence of a risk of further offenses on bail. This stringent approach aims to carefully evaluate serious offenses before considering release on bail.
“A plain reading of the statutory provision makes it abundantly clear that in the event the Public Prosecutor opposes the prayer for bail, the Court would have to record a satisfaction that there are grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty,”
-observed the Supreme Court.
The Court emphasized that in cases involving the recovery of a commercial quantity of narcotic substances, satisfaction must be recorded as per Section 37 of the NDPS Act. Additionally, when an accused with criminal antecedents is involved, caution should be exercised in granting bail.
“In case of recovery of such a huge quantity of narcotic substance, the Courts should be slow in granting even regular bail to the accused what to talk of anticipatory bail, more so when the accused is alleged to be having criminal antecedents,”
-the Court asserted.
The Supreme Court expressed disapproval of the unconventional approach taken by the High Court in attaching unusual conditions to the anticipatory bail.
“Manifestly, a very strange approach has been adopted by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order whereby the anticipatory bail was granted to the respondent on the condition that the appellant would deposit a sum of Rs. 30,000/¬ to the credit of the registered Tamil Nadu Advocate Clerk Association, Chennai, along with various other conditions,”
– remarked the Court.
Consequently, deeming the High Court’s order as ambiguous and perverse, the Supreme Court set it aside and quashed it.
ALSO READ: Supreme Court: ‘NCP-Sharadchandra Pawar’ Name Allowed for Sharad Pawar Faction Until Further Notice
“As a consequence, the impugned order is cryptic and perverse on the face of the record and cannot be sustained. Thus, the same is quashed and set aside,”
-the Court declared.
The accused respondent has been directed to surrender before the learned trial court within 10 days from the date of the order.
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
