The Supreme Court emphasized caution in granting bail for narcotics offenses, particularly in cases involving commercial quantities. The court quashed the Madras High Court’s anticipatory bail order, citing unusual conditions, including a monetary payment. The accused, caught with 233 kg of ganja, well above the non-commercial limit, was granted bail despite opposition from the public prosecutor and two prior similar cases.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
The Supreme Court emphasized caution in granting bail, particularly in cases involving the recovery of commercial quantities of narcotics under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS Act). The court, comprising Justice BR Gavai and Sandeep Mehta, raised concerns over the Madras High Court’s decision to grant anticipatory bail to an accused without establishing prima facie satisfaction under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.
Section 37 of the NDPS Act–
This provision states that all offenses under the Act are considered cognizable. For specific serious offenses, individuals are not eligible for bail unless the Public Prosecutor has a chance to oppose and the court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe in the accused’s innocence and that they won’t commit any offense while on bail. These bail restrictions are in addition to any existing limitations in the Code of Criminal Procedure or other applicable laws.
ALSO READ: Supreme Court: Homemaker’s Work Equal to Salary-Earning Spouse
The case in question, State Rep By Inspector of Police vs B Ramu, saw the accused being released by the High Court with a peculiar condition – he was required to pay Rs. 30,000 to the Tamil Nadu Advocate Clerk Association. The Supreme Court deemed this condition as “totally alien to the principles governing bail jurisprudence and is nothing short of perversity.” The court unequivocally quashed the bail granted to the accused.
The unconventional approach taken by the learned Single Judge, the Supreme Court highlighted the anomaly in the order, stating,
“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.”
ALSO READ: Supreme Court Order, Gujarat CID Lodges FIR on 2 IPS, 3 DSP among 19 Others for Alleged Extortion
The bench, while hearing the petition filed by the State of Tamil Nadu, noted the accused’s arrest with a substantial quantity of ganja – 233 kilograms, well above the non-commercial limit of 20 kilograms. The court found fault with the High Court for liberally granting pre-arrest bail, especially considering the serious nature of the offense and the fact that a chargesheet had been filed.
According to Section 37 of the NDPS Act, the court is required to ascertain grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of the alleged offense and is unlikely to commit any offense while on bail. The Supreme Court underlined the importance of this provision, particularly in cases involving commercial quantities of narcotics. The court held-
“In case of recovery of a commercial quantity of narcotic substances, courts should be slow in granting bail to those with criminal antecedents.”
The bench the High Court’s decision, stating-
“The fact that after investigation, the chargesheet has been filed against the respondent-accused along with other accused persons fortifies the plea of the State counsel that the Court could not have recorded satisfaction that the accused was prima facie not guilty of the offenses alleged.”
ALSO READ: Supreme Court Safeguards Employee Rights, Validates Direct Appeals to Superiors
The Supreme Court allowed the State’s appeal, directing the accused to surrender within ten days. Senior Additional Advocate General V Krishnamurthy, along with advocates D Kumanan, Deepa, Sheikh F Kalia, and Veshal Tyagi, represented the Tamil Nadu government, while advocates G Sivabalamurugan, Selvaraj Mahendran, C Adhikesavan, SB Kamalanathan, Sumit Singh Rawat, PV Harikrishnan, Karuppaiah Meyyappan, Raghunatha Sethupathy B, Kanika Kalaiyarasan, and Abhishek Kalaiyarasan represented the accused.
