TABLE OF CONTENT
LEVEL I ANALYSIS:
Supreme Court____________________________________________________________________4
Allahabad High Court______________________________________________________________18
Andhra Pradesh High Court_________________________________________________________35
Bombay High Court_______________________________________________________________43
Calcutta High Court_______________________________________________________________65
Chattisgarh High Court____________________________________________________________71
Delhi High Court_________________________________________________________________72
Guwahati High Court______________________________________________________________87
Gujarat High Court________________________________________________________________89
Himachal Pradesh High Court_______________________________________________________93
Jammu and Kashmir High Court_____________________________________________________98
Karnataka High Court_____________________________________________________________99
Kerala High Court________________________________________________________________104
Madhya Pradesh High Court________________________________________________________110
Madras High Court_______________________________________________________________117
Orissa High Court________________________________________________________________124
Patna High Court_________________________________________________________________137
Punjab and Haryana High Court_____________________________________________________140
Rajasthan high court______________________________________________________________149
Uttarakhand High Court___________________________________________________________150
LEVEL II ANALYSIS:_________________________________________________________157
Appendix____________________________________________________________________158
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S. Name Of The Case Issue Before The Supreme Decision Of The Supreme Remark
No Court Court
1 Union of India Whether the proviso to In our opinion, such a Appeal dismissed. Bail
Vs. Sub-section (2) of Section construction of Clause (b) of upheld.
Thamisharasi and Ors. 167 of the CrPC, 1973 can Sub-section (1) of Section 37
be invoked by an accused is not permissible. The
(1995)4SCC190 arrested for commission of limitation on the power to
an offence under the NDPS release on bail in Section 437
Decided on : 01.05.1995 Act to claim release on bail Cr. P.C. is in the nature of a
on the expiry of the total restriction on that power, if
Coram: period specified therein if reasonable grounds exist for
Justice J.S. Verma the complaint is not filed the belief that the accused is
Justice S.V. Manohar within that period? The guilty. On the other hand, the
Madras High Court has limitation on this power in
Counsels: answered this question in Section 37 of the NDPS act
K.T.S. Tulsi the affirmative and is in the nature of a condition
Ram Jethmalani, directed the release on bail precedent for the exercise of
B. Kumar and K.K. of the respondents who that power, so that, the
were arrested for the accused shall not be released
Mani. commission of offences on bail unless the Court is
under the Narcotic Drugs satisfied that there are
& Psychotropic Substances reasonable grounds to
act in default of filing the believe that he is not guilty.
complaint within that Under Section 437 Cr. P.C, it
period. Hence these is for the prosecution to show
appeals by special leave. the existence of reasonable
grounds to support the belief
High Court gave answered in the guilt of the accused to
to above question in attract the restriction on the
affirmative and directed power to grant bail; but
the release of the accused. under Section 37 Narcotic
Drugs & Psychotropic
Substances act, it is the
accused who must show the
existence of grounds for the
belief that he is not guilty, to
satisfy the condition
precedent and lift the
embargo on the power to
grant bail. This appears to be
the distinction between the
two provisions which makes
Section 37 of the Narcotic
Drugs & Psychotropic
Substances act more
stringent. Accordingly,
provision in Section 37 to the
extent it is inconsistent with
Section 437 of the CrPC
supersedes the corresponding
provisions in the Code and
imposes limitations on
granting of bail in addition to
the limitations under the
CrPC as expressly provided
in Sub-section (2) of Section
37. These limitations on
granting of bail specified in
Sub-section (1) of Section 37
are in addition to the
limitations under Section 437
of the CrPC and were
enacted only for this purpose;
and they do not have the
effect of excluding the
applicability of the proviso to
Sub-section (2) of Section
167 Cr.P.C. which operates
in a different field relating to
the total period of custody of
the accused permissible
during investigation.
2 Dr. Bipin Shantilal Instant appeal was filed The Supreme Court placing Bail denied. Decision
Panchal against an order dated reliance upon the decision of of the High Court
19.4.1994 passed by the the Constitution bench in rejecting bail
Vs. High Court, rejecting the Sanjay Dutt v. State through application upheld.
State of Gujarat prayer of the bail, made on C.B.I. Bombay (II)
behalf of the appellant, MANU/SC/0554/1994 held
AIR1996SC2897 who is an accused for if an accused person fails to
offences under the exercise his right to be
Decided On: 08.01.1996 N.D.P.S. Act. released on bail for the
failure of the prosecution to
Coram: file the charge-sheet within
Justice A.M. Ahmadi, the maximum time allowed
Justice B.P. Jeevan by law, he cannot contended
Reddy that he had an indefeasible
Justice N.P. Singh, right to exercise it at any
time notwithstanding the fact
Counsels that in the meantime the
Meenakshi Arora, Adv charge sheet is filed, But on
H. Wahi, Adv. the other hand if he exercises
the right within the time
allowed by law and is
released on bail under such
circumstances, he cannot be
rearrested on the mere filing
of the charge-sheet, as
pointed out in Aslam Babalal
Desai v. State of Maharashtra
MANU/SC/0001/1993
3 Union of India The respondent was The Supreme Court found Bail cancelled.
Vs. accused of an offence the decision of the High
Merajuddin under the NDPS Act. He Court grating bail to the
(1999)6SCC43 was granted bail by the respondent as improper and
High Court without cancelled the bail as the High
Decided On: 12.04.1999 consideration the Court did not follow the
Coram: requirements as laid down procedure prescribed in
Dr. A.S. Anand, C.J. in section 37 of the said section 37 of the NDPS Act
Justice M. Jagannadha Act.
Rao
Justice N. Santosh
Hegde,
4 Union of India The issue which came up The Supreme Court after Bail cancelled. The SC
Vs. for consideration in this examining the matter at held the impugned
Ram Samujh and case was whether the order length held that The decision as cryptic. It
Another passed by the High Court jurisdiction of the Court to is to be borne in mind
of Judicature at Allahabad, grant bail is circumscribed by that requirements of
(1999)9SCC429 Lucknow Bench, granting the provision of Section 37 section 37 are
bail to respondent No. 1 of the NDPS Act. It can be legislative mandate
Decided On:30.08.1999 Ram Samujh Yadav granted in case where there required to be adhered
required to be set aside on are reasonable grounds for and followed.
Coram: the ground that the High believing that accused is not
Court ignored the guilty of such offence and
Justice K.T. Thomas provisions of Section 37 that he is not likely to
Justice M.B. Shah NDPS Act as well as the commit any offence while on
law laid down by this bail. It is the mandate of the
Counsels: Court. legislature which is required
to be followed.
Anoop Chaudhary, A.S.
Rawat The Court set-aside the order
of the High Court granting
K.B. Hina, bail to the respondent and
directed him to surrender.
5 Union of India This appeal by the Union The Supreme Court held that Bail cancelled. It was
Vs. of India was filed against while considering the bail stressed by the Court
Ikram Khan and Ors. the order of the High Court application arises out of that provisions of
granting bail to the accused proceedings under NDPS Act Section 37 of the
(2000)9SCC221 against whom a proceeding the High Court was not borne NDPS Act are
under the NDPS is in mind the provisions of mandatory in nature
Decided On: pending. As the trial has Section 37 of the NDPS Act and the Court must
13.01.2000 not begun for four years, which are mandatory in bear in mind the said
the High Court appears to nature and the Court must provisions before
Coram: have re-fused to exercise bear in mind the said deciding an
Justice G.B. Patnaik its power to cancel the bail. provisions before deciding an application of bail
Justice U.C. Banerjee application of bail in case an
accused is facing a trial
under the provisions of the
NDPS Act.
6 Union of India This appeal was filed by The Supreme Court found no Bail Cancelled. The
Vs. the Union of India against reason to get counter High Court was totally
Aharwa Deen the decision of the of the affidavit, since on the face of in error in granting
learned single Judge of the the impugned order of the bail without even
(2000)9SCC382 Allahabad High Court, High Court granting bail focusing its attention
Lucknow Bench, cannot be sustained as the to the mandatory
Decided On: 31.01.2000 Lucknow, granting bail to High Court has not looked provision of Section
the respondent in case into the provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act.
Coram: under Sections 8/18, NDPS 37 of the Narcotic Drugs &
Act. Respondent sought an Psychotropic Substances Act.
Justice G.B. Patnaik adjournment to file The impugned judgment was
Justice U.C. Banerjee. Counter-affidavit. set-aside as being delivered
overlooking the mandatory
requirements of section 37 of
the NDPS Act.
7 Superintendent, Respondent and his wife The Supreme Court held that Bail cancelled.
Narcotics Central were facing a prosecution it has has laid down the Requirements
Bureau for offences under Sections parameters to be followed prescribed in section
Vs. 8C, 21, 27A, 28 and 29 of while considering the 37 of NDPS Act are
R. Paulsamy the NDPS Act 1985 and application for bail moved by sin qua non for
193 and 1208 (120-B) accused involved in offences granting bail to an
(2000)9SCC549 Indian Penal Code. The under NDPS Act vide Union accused involved in
case against them is that 2 of India v. Ram Samujh the offence under the
Decided On: 30.03.2000 k.g. heroin had been MANU/SC/0530/1999 It is Act.
recovered from a room unnecessary for us to repeat
Coram: which was in the those parameters over again.
Justice K.T. Thomas, possession of the We have no doubt that
Justice D.P. Mohapatra, respondent. A learned learned single Judge has not
single Judge of the High followed the aforesaid
Court of Madras passed an parameters in this case.
order releasing him on bail
on executing a bond in a
sum of Rs. 10,000/- with
two solvent sureties.
Hence this petition before
the Court seeking
cancellation of bail.
8 Babua @ Tazmul The petitioners were The Supreme Court held that Bail denied.
Hossain charged that on or about unless there are reasonable
Vs. 27.07.1998 at Kilapokhari grounds for believing that the
State of Orissa of Balasore Town abetted accused is not guilty of such
the commission of the offence and that he is not
Decided On: 30.01.2001 offence by (i) Azad Parvez, likely to commit any offence
(ii) Batu @ Jahid Parvej, while on bail alone will
Coram: and (iii) Allauddin Saha @ entitle him to a bail under
Justice S. Rajendra Sk. Allauddin or was party section 37 (1) of NDPS Act.
Babu, with them to a criminal
Justice K.G. conspiracy to commit an The other aspect to be borne
Balakrishnan. offence of possession in mind is that the liberty of a
and/or sale cannabis ganja citizen has got to be balanced
Counsels: and manufactured drugs with the interest of the
punishable under Chapter society. In cases where
Abhishek M. Singhvi, IV of NDPS Act and narcotic drugs and
Vijay HansariaKirti and thereby committed an psychotropic substances are
Renu Mishra under Section 20(b) and involved, the accused would
Section 21 read with indulge in activities which
Section 29 of the Act are lethal to the society.
within the cognizance of
the Special Judge at Therefore, it would certainly
Balasore.
be in the interest of the
society to keep such persons
behind bars during the
pendency of the proceedings
before the Court, and the
validity of Section 37(1)(b)
having been upheld, we
cannot take any other view.
9 Intelligence Officer, Question came for The Supreme Court held that Bail cancelled. Order
Narcotics C. Bureau consideration in this case scheme of section 37 reveals of the High Court
vs. before the Court was that the exercise of the power granting bail set-aside.
Sambhu Sonkar and Anr. whether the restrictions to grant bail by the Special
imposed under Section 37 Judge is not only subject to
[2001]1SCR821 of the NDPS Act would be the limitations contained
applicable in a case where under Section 439 of the
Decided On: 02.02.2001 offence is punishable under Cr.P.C., but is also subject to
Section 20(b)(i) for the limitation placed by
Coram: possessing Ganja? Section 37 which
Justice M.B. Shah. commences with non-
Justice S.N. Variava. obstante clause.
Petitioner sought to
Counsels cancellation of bail granted The operative part of the said
to the respondent by the section is in negative in
Mukul Rohtagi , High Court . prescribing the enlargement
Tapash Ray, of bail of any person accused
Ms. Sushma Suri of commission of an offence
under the Act unless two
conditions are satisfied. The
first condition is that
prosecution must be given an
opportunity to oppose the
application and the second is
that the Court must be
satisfied that there are
reasonable grounds for
believing that he is not guilty
of such offence. If either of
these two conditions is not
satisfied, the ban for granting
bail operates. As per the
mandate of Section 37, no
person accused of an offence
punishable for a term of
imprisonment of 5 years or
more under the Act can be
released on bail unless the
conditions mentioned in sub-
clauses (i) and (ii) of Clause
(b) are satisfied.
10 Bipin Shantilal Panchal A consignment at the Air Supreme Court held that for Bail denied.
Vs. Warehouse, Mumbai, disposal of the present
State of Gujarat and Anr. which was meant for application we may state that
export to Nairobi was there is no point in our
AIR2001SC1158 intercepted. The granting further time to the
consignment, when trial Court to complete the
Decided On: 22.02.2001 opened, was found trial. It is for the trial Court
containing a very huge to complete it as early as
Coram: quantity of Mandrex possible. But we would not
Justice K.T. Thomas, tablets (Methaqualone). do anything to deprive the
Justice R.P. Sethi, Respondent (Dr. Bipin S. accused in custody of his
Justice B.N. Agrawal. Panchal) was arrested on right to move for bail on
8.11.1993 in connection account of the delay thus far
with the aforesaid seizure occasioned. The bail
of narcotic or psychotropic application would be
substance. It led to the disposed of by the Court
unearthing of a further concerned on its own merits
huge quantity of Mandrex
tablets which, added with
the earlier interception, is
quantified at about 2000
kgs. The Directorate, of
Revenue Intelligence,
Ahmedabad filed a
complaint against certain
persons including
respondent Bipin S.
Panchal, for various
offences under the
Narcotic Drugs and
Psychotropic Substance
(NDPS) Act.
The said case was being
tried before the Court of
Additional City Sessions
Judge, Ahmedabad.
Respondent was detained
in prison as he was not
bailed out during the trial
proceedings despite
repeated motions made by
him. Once in 1994, when
respondent approached for
bail, Supreme Court
directed the trial Court to
expedite the trial. Though
the evidence taking started
on 4.9.96, the case is still
lingering on as the trial
persisted thereafter for
years.
11 State of Madhya Pradesh Acting upon definite Supreme Court noted that the Bail Cancelled. Order
vs. information received by learned Single Judge of the of the High Court
Kajad the Police Station Jawad, High Court has granted the granting bail set-aside.
Decided On: 06.09.2001 District Neemuch, Madhya bail on his own sense of
AIR2001SC3317 Pradesh, force was observation regarding the
Coram: deployed and the course of conduct adopted by
Justice M.B. Shah, respondent-accused the accused at the time of his
Justice R.P. Sethi. apprehended on the night interception and arrest.
Counsels of 24th March, 2000. After Merely because the accused
Ume Nath Singh compliance of the was found to be continuing
C.L. Sahu mandatory provisions of to hold bag containing opium
Section 50 of the NDPS during the period, the raiding
Act(hereinafter called "the party searched him in
Act"), opium weighing 7 accordance with the
kgs. was seized from the provisions of the Act, the
accused which he had kept learned Judge was not
in his bag. After justified to conclude "it is by
completing necessary itself unnatural". How the
procedural formalities and learned Judge concluded that
getting the samples tested, the conduct of the accused or
a charge-sheet was raiding party were unnatural
submitted against the is not discernible from the
accused in the competent impugned order. A person,
court. Application for bail apprehended by a raiding
moved by the accused was party, who is sought to be
rejected by the trial court. searched is supposed to hold
Dissatisfied with the the goods in his possession
rejection of his bail unless he opts to flee from
application, the the place of occurrence or
respondent-accused moved advised to throw the
an application in the High container in which the
Court which was registered offending substance is
as Miscellaneous Criminal contained. Section 37 of the
Case No. 2050 of 2000. Act has been referred in the
The said application was impugned order not for the
rejected by the High Court purposes of showing of its
vide order dated 5.6.2000. compliance but to justify the
Without mentioning any passing of an apparently
change in the wrong order. If, besides
circumstances, the referring to Section 37 of the
respondent-accused moved Act, the learned Judge would
another application in the have referred to its
High Court in the month of provisions, he would not
August, 2000 which was have fallen a prey to the
adjourned from time to ulterior designs of the
time and ultimately respondent-accused.
allowed vide the order
impugned in this appeal. The purpose for which the
Act was enacted and the
menace of drug trafficking
which intends to curtail is
evident from its scheme. A
perusal of Section 37 of the
Act leaves no doubt in the
mind of the court that a
person accused of an offence,
punishable for a term of
imprisonment of five years or
more, shall generally be not
released on bail.
12 Union of India The respondent is charged Supreme Court held that Bail Cancelled. Order
Vs. for offence under Sections Under the mandatory of the High Court
Ashok Kumar Jaiswal 8 and 21 of the NDPS Act conditions provided in granting bail set-aside.
(2007)15SCC569 Section 37 before granting
Decided On: 19.07.2002 The High Court granted the bail the Court is to be
Coram: bail to the respondent satisfied that there are
Justice Y.K. Sabharwal without following the reasonable grounds for
Justice H.K. Sema, requirements of section 37 believing that the accused is
Counsels: of NDPS Act. not guilty of offence and that
Soli J.Sorabji, Binu he is not likely to commit
Tamta, Sushma Suri Hence present appeal offences under the Act while
seeking cancellation of bail on bail. This Court in various
judgments while quashing
the orders granting bail to
accused of offence under the
Act have cautioned the courts
about the mandatory
requirements of Section 37.
13 Narcotics Control The Respondents were The Supreme Court held that Bail Cancelled. Order
Bureau convicted under Section 29 there is not even a whisper of the High Court
Vs. read with Section about the condition contained granting bail set-aside.
Karma Phuntsok and 20(b)(ii)(c) of NDPS Act in Section 37 of the N.D.P.S.
Ors. and sentenced to rigorous Act with regard to enlarging
imprisonment for 10 years of the accused on bail. Mr.
(2005)12SCC480 and a fine of Rs. 1,000. Jaspal Singh, learned senior
Decided On: 22.08.2005 counsel appearing for the
High Court vide its order Respondents contended that
Coram: dated 11.9.2003 and the learned Public Prosecutor
H.K. Sema and B.N. 25.9.2003 suspended the did not oppose the bail as
Srikrishna, JJ. conviction during the contained in Section
pendency of the appeal. 37(1)(b)(ii) of the N.D.P.S.
Act. According to him,
Hence present appeal unless the Public Prosecutor
seeking undo of the opposes the bail application,
suspension of the sentence. Section 37 will not apply.
Mr. Singh seriously
contended that inasmuch as
the Appellants have not put
on record that the Public
Prosecutor had opposed the
granting of bail, it must be
presumed that this is an order
covered under Section 37(3)
read with Section 439, Code
of Criminal Procedure To say
the least, the argument
appears to be baseless. We
cannot accept the contention
that in a matter involving
seizure of commercial
quantity of a substance
prohibited by the N.D.P.S.
Act when the Public
Prosecutor appears on notice
of the bail application he
would be standing there as a
mute spectator not opposing
the bail application unless he
was at the back of the
accused. We find no
substance in this argument.
14 State of Uttaranchal Respondent was an The Supreme Court held that Bail upheld.
Vs. Ayurvedacharya. Section 37 of the 1985 Act
Rajesh Kumar Gupta Advertisements were, would prima facie has no Once drugs are said to
application in view of the be used for medicinal
2007(1)ACR1093(SC) allegedly, being issued by exception contained in purposes, they are
Section 8 thereof read with acknowledge to be
Decided On: 10.11.2006 him in various newspapers the Rules. Respondent is drugs coming within
charged with a grave offence. the purview of
Coram: claiming that medicines It was, therefore, all the more expression "medicinal
Justice S.B. Sinha. necessary to apply the purposes" and would
Justice P.P. Naolekar, used by him were prepared principles of law strictly. A be covered by the
person cannot be denied the exception provided in
Counsels from herbal plants right of being released on Section 8 of the NDPS
Amarendra Sharan bail unless a clear case of Act.
collected from the Banks application of the 1985 Act is
K.T.S. Tulsi
of Ganges and by
application thereof patients
suffering from epilepsy can
be cured. The State,
however, on the allegation
that in his medicine, he had
been using unlabelled made out. He might have
tablets containing committed an offence which
psychotropic substances repulses out morality. He
making the unsuspecting may ultimately be found
patients addicted to the guilty even for commission
drugs, raided the premises of an offence under the 1985
of the said clinics. 70 kgs. Act, but in a case of this
pure phenobarbitone were nature when prima facie the
recovered. Respondent was provisions of the said Act are
arrested on 13.8.2004 and not found applicable
since then he was in jail particularly in view of the
custody. Charges were fact that he has been in
framed against him under custody for a period of more
Section 8 read with Section than two years now, in our
22 of the NDPS Act Drugs opinion, it is not a fit case
and Magic Remedies where we should exercise our
(Objectionable discretionary jurisdiction
Advertisement) Act, 1954. under Article 136 of the
Constitution of India.
Bail application was
dismissed by the Special
Judge.
High Court allowed the
bail application holding
that ordinarily applications
for bail are required to be
considered having regard
to Section 37 of the NDPS
Act. It, however, opined
that the drugs in question
not being listed in the 1st
Schedule appended to
NDPS Act. The respondent
cannot be said to have
committed any offence
under Section 8 read with
Section 22 of 1985 Act.
15 Union of India Respondent was charged The Supreme Court held that Bail Cancelled. Order
Vs. for alleged commission of Court while considering the of the High Court
Shri Shiv Shanker Kesari offence punishable under application for bail with granting bail set-aside.
[2007]10SCR964 Sections 8, 15, 27A and 29 reference to Section 37 of the
of the NDPS Act. Act is not called upon to
Allegation was that he was record a finding of not guilty.
Decided On: 14.09.2007 found to be in possession It is for the limited purpose
of huge quantity of poppy essentially confined to the
Coram: straw. It is the case of the question of releasing the
Justice Dr. Arijit Pasayat prosecution that the raiding accused on bail that the
Justice D.K. Jain, party seized nearly 400 Kg. Court is called upon to see if
Counsels: of poppy straw from the there are reasonable grounds
Vikas Singh possession of the accused- for believing that the accused
Indra Sawhney respondent. is not guilty and records its
satisfaction about the
Bail application made by existence of such grounds.
the respondent was But the Court has not to
rejected by learned Special consider the matter as if it is
Judge (NDPS Act), pronouncing a judgment of
Varanasi. acquittal and recording a
finding of not guilty.
High Court allowed the No person shall be granted
bail application. Hence bail unless the two conditions
present appeal seeking are satisfied. They are; the
cancellation of bail. satisfaction of the Court that
there are reasonable grounds
for believing that the accused
is not guilty and that he is not
likely to commit any offence
while on bail. Both the
conditions have to be
satisfied. If either of these
two conditions is not
satisfied, the bar operates and
the accused cannot be
released on bail.
16 Sayed Abul Ala Appellant was detained Supreme Court held that an Bail allowed. Before
Vs. under the Illicit Traffic in application for bail is passing detention
Union of India and Ors. NDPS Act by an order required to be filed and Order detaining
dated 15th February, 2000. considered by the appropriate authority must reach
[2007]10SCR631 The period of detention is Court in terms of Section 439 the subjective
over. He, however, of the Code of Criminal satisfaction that detenu
Decided On: 26.09.2007 questioned the validity of Procedure but in cases if released will indulge
the said order of detention involving the provisions of in similar activity.
Coram: before the High Court of the NDPS Act, the detaining
Justice S.B. Sinha, Delhi inter alia on the authority was required to
Justice H.S. Bedi, premise that unless the take into consideration the
order of detention is set restrictions imposed on the
Counsel aside, a proceeding may be power of the court to grant
Harjinder Singh initiated against him under bail having regard to the
Sanjay R. Hegde, Chapter VA of Narcotic provisions of Section 37
Amit Kumar Chawla Drugs and Psychotropic thereof. The statute, thus,
puts limitation on the
Substances Act, 1985. jurisdiction of the court in
the ratter of grant of bail.
Appellant filed an They cannot be ignored by
any Court of law. Several
application before the decisions of this Court and of
High Court operate in the
special judge that he may field.
not be transferred to Delhi. Refraction from confession
by the detenu although may
The said plea was not be one of the grounds for
arriving at the conclusion
accepted. The order of with regard to the subjective
satisfaction of the detaining
detention was placed authority, in our opinion, the
detaining authority should
before the Advisory Board have also informed himself
about the implication of
for confirmation. The Section 37 of the Act. If the
detenu was involved in a
Advisory Board was to large number of cases and
the prosecution was aware of
hold its meeting on 22nd the same, it would invariably
be brought to the notice of
April, 2000. According to the court dealing with the
application of bail filed by
the appellant on the the detenu by the public
prosecutor. Further more, the
aforementioned date order of the Court granting
bail would be passed only
neither he nor his advocate when the court dealing
therewith forms an opinion
Shri S.C. Puri could appear that there are reasonable
grounds for believing that he
before the Advisory Board is not guilty of such offences
that there was no likelihood
as he was being taken to to commit any offence while
on bail.
Delhi from Bengal, and his
advocate received the said
communication from the
Advisory Board only on
25th April, 2000. It is also
not in dispute that upon
recommendations of the
Advisory Board, the order
of detention was confirmed
on 12.5.2000. Appellant
made two representations
praying for revocation of
the order of detention. The
first representation was
made on 14th March, 2000
raising all legal questions.
The said representation
was rejected. He, however,
filed another representation
on 26th May, 2000 inter
alia on the premise that his
Constitutional right to
appear before the Advisory
Board having been denied
to him, he was entitled to
revocation of the order of
detention dated 15th
February, 2000. The said
representation was also
rejected. Aggrieved, he
filed a writ petition before
the High Court.
17 Sanjay Kumar Kedia On 1.2.2007 officers of the Supreme Court held that in Bail denied. Appeal
Vs. Narcotics Control Bureau the face of overwhelming dismissed. It was held
Narcotics Control (NCB) conducted a search inculpatory evidence it is not "Court shall not
Bureau and Anr. at the residence and office possible to give the finding release accused on
premises of the appellant envisaged under Section 37 bail, unless reasonable
(2008)2SCC294 but found nothing of the Act for the grant of ground is established."
incriminating. He was also bail that there were
Decided On: 03.12.2007 called upon to appear reasonable grounds for
before the NCB on a believing that the appellant
Coram: number of occasions was not guilty of the offence
Justice S.B. Sinha, pursuant to a notice issued alleged, or that he would not
Justice H.S. Bedi, to him under Section 67 of resume his activities should
Counels: the NDPS Act and was bail be granted.
K.T.S. Tulsi , ultimately arrested and the
Uday Umesh Lalit, bank accounts and
Vikash Singh premises of the two
companies were also
seized or sealed. On
13.3.2007 the appellant
filed an application for bail
in the High Court which
was dismissed on the
ground that a prima facie
case under Sections 24 and
29 of the Act had been
made out and that the
investigation was yet not
complete. The appellant
thereafter moved a second
bail application before the
High Court on 16.4.2007
which too was dismissed
with the observations that
the enquiry was at a critical
stage and that the
department should be
afforded sufficient time to
conduct its enquiry and to
bring it to its logical
conclusion as the alleged
offences had widespread
ramifications for society. It
appears that a bail
application was thereafter
filed by the appellant
before the Special Judge
which too was rejected on
28.5.2007 with the
observations that the
investigation was still in
progress. Aggrieved
thereby, the appellant
preferred yet another
application for bail before
the High Court on 4.6.2007
which too was dismissed
on 7.6.2007.
18 Sami Ullaha The luggage of two Supreme Court while set- Bail granted.
Vs. persons, viz., Abdul Munaf aside the impugned order "Cancellation of bail
Superintendent, Narcotic and Zahid Hussain, who cancelling the bail held that necessarily involves
Central Bureau were travelling in a bus there exists a difference of the review of a
AIR2009SC1357 were searched and opinion insofar as the Central decision already made
Decided On: 07.11.2008 allegedly contraband Revenue Control Laboratory, and can by and large
Coram: weighing 2 kgs. was New Delhi, has since opined be permitted only if,
Justice S.B. Sinha, recovered. A purported that the sample contained by reason of
Justice Cyriac Joseph statement was made by the 2.6% heroin. The effect of supervening
Counsels: said accused persons that said contradictory report circumstances, it
Sushil Kumar Jain, must be gone into only at would be no longer
the said contraband trial. A person's liberty is conducive to a fair
Puneet Jain protected in terms of Article trial to allow the
(heroin) was meant to be 21 of the Constitution of accused to retain his
India. When two views are freedom during the
delivered to the appellant. possible, the view which trial."
leans in favour of an accused
Nothing was recovered must be favoured.
from him. Apart from the
said statements of the said
accused persons, no other
material is available on
record to sustain a charge
against him. On the basis
of the said statement, the
appellant was arrested on
15.08.2004. Allegedly, a
statement was made by
him in terms of Section 67
of the NDPS Act.
Indisputably, the seized
articles were sent for
chemical examination to
the Government Opium
and Alkaloid Works,
Neemuch. A report was
sent to the investigating
officer on 23.09.2004
stating that the sample did
not contain any contraband
substance. Appellant
thereafter filed an
application for discharge.
The prosecution moved the
court for sending the
substance allegedly
recovered from the co-
accused persons for its
examination by the Central
Revenue Control
Laboratory, New Delhi. It
was rejected by the court
opining that there was no
provision in the Act for
sending the sample to
another laboratory. The
court, however, did not
pass an order of discharge
in favour of the appellant
but released him on bail.
The prosecution, however,
sent another sample to the
Central Revenue Control
Laboratory, New Delhi. A
report dated 6.01.2005 was
sent opining that the
sample under reference
was tested positive for
Diacetyl-morphine
(Heroin), which according
to the said report was
found to be 2.6% of the
sample tested.
An application for
cancellation of bail was
filed on 4.02.2005. By an
order dated 15.03.2005, the
bail granted to the
appellant was cancelled
relying on or on the basis
of the second report
obtained by the respondent
from the Central Revenue
Control Laboratory, New
Delhi
19 Ratan Kumar Vishwas Challenge in this appeal Supreme Court while Bail denied. Person
Vs. was to the Judgment of a dismissing the appeal held accused of offence
State of U.P. and Anr. learned Single Judge of the that a sentence awarded under the NDPS Act
AIR2009SC581 Allahabad High Court under the Act can be should not be released
Decided On: 07.11.2008 dismissing the application suspended by the Appellate on bail unless the
Coram: filed by the appellant for Court only and strictly mandatory conditions
Justice Dr. Arijit suspension of sentence and subject to the conditions as provided under
Pasayat, grant of bail. Appellant- spelt out in Section 37 of the Section 37 that there
Justice C.K. Thakker , Ratan Kumar Vishwas has Act. To deal with the menace are reasonable grounds
Justice D.K. Jain, filed an Appeal No. 6636 of dangerous drugs flooding for holding that the
of 2006 questioning his the market, Parliament has accused is not guilty of
conviction the offence provided that a person such office and that he
punishable under Sections accused of offence under the is not likely to commit
27A and 29 of the NDPS Act should not be released on any offence while on
Act. He was sentenced to bail during trial unless the bail are satisfied.
undergo rigorous mandatory conditions
imprisonment for 14 years provided under Section 37
and to pay a fine of rupees that there are reasonable
two lacs with default grounds for holding that the
stipulation. Learned accused is not guilty of such
Additional Sessions Judge, office and that he is not
Fast Track Court No. 1, likely to commit any offence
Kanpur Nagar has found while on bail are satisfied. So
the appellant guilty and far as the first condition is
convicted and sentenced concerned, apparently the
him as aforesaid. accused has been found
guilty and has been
convicted. Section 37 of the
Act.
20 Union of India Respondent was involved Supreme Court called upon Bail Cancelled. Order
Vs. in financing and trading in to decide whether the High of the High Court
Rattan Mallik @ Habul 14.900 kilograms of Court, while accepting the granting bail set-aside.
(2009)2SCC624 heroin, recovered from a prayer for grant of bail, had
Decided On: 23.01.2009 specially made cavity kept in view the parameters "Recording of
Coram: above the cabin of a truck. of Section 37 of the NDPS satisfaction that
Justice D.K. Jain, Upon consideration of the Act, Accused is not guilty
Justice R.M. Lodha. evidence adduced, the Trial Supreme Court set-aside of offence and that he
Counsel: Court came to the Impugned order of the High is not likely to commit
conclusion that the Court and held that any offence while on
A. Sharan, prosecution had satisfaction contemplated bail is sine qua non for
Sunita Sharma
successfully proved the regarding accused being not granting of bail under
charges against the guilty, has to be based on the NDPS Act."
respondent and three "reasonable grounds"
others. On conviction, the Expression "reasonable
Trial Court sentenced the grounds" implies something
respondent to undergo more than prima facie
rigorous imprisonment for ground.
ten years and to pay a fine Mandatory requirements
of Rs.1 lac under Section under section 37 of the
NDPC Act cannot be
27A of the NDPS Act and ignored.
Circumstances that, (i)
undergo rigorous nothing has been found from
possession of accused, (ii) he
imprisonment for ten years is in jail for last 3 years and
(iii) there is no chance of
and a fine of Rs.1 lac under appeal being heard in near
future cannot waive the
Section 29 of the NDPS requirement of section 37 of
NDPC Act.
Act, with default
stipulation.
High Court suspended the
sentence awarded by the
trial Court to the
respondent for having
committed offences under
Sections 8/27A and 8/29 of
NDPS Act and granting
him bail.
21 Thana Singh The Appellant- accused, Supreme Court laid down the Bail Granted.
Vs. who had been languishing directions and guidelines
Central Bureau of in prison for more than specified hereinafter for due "Under trial Accused
Narcotics twelve years, awaiting the observance by all concerned shall be released on
(2013)2SCC590 commencement of his trial as the law declared by this bail if he has been in
Decided On: 23.01.2013 for an offence under the Court under Article 141 of jail for not less than
Coram: NDPS Act was the Constitution of India. five years and
Justice D.K. Jain, consistently denied bail, This is done in exercise of furnishes bail in sum
Justice J.S. Khehar. even by the High Court. the power available under of rupees one lakh
Cousel: Significantly, the Article 32 of the Constitution with two sureties."
P.P. Malhotra maximum punishment for for enforcement of
A. Mariarputham the offence the accused fundamental rights,
was incarcerated for is especially the cluster of
twenty years; hence, the fundamental rights
undertrial had remained in incorporated under Article
detention for a period 21, which stand flagrantly
exceeding one-half of the violated due to the state of
maximum period of affairs of trials under the
imprisonment. NDPS Act. We would like to
clarify that these directions
Grant of bail to the are restricted only to the
respondent by a learned proceedings under the NDPS
Single Judge of Bombay Act.
High Court is questioned
by the Narcotics Control
Bureau as granting of bail
being done overlooking the
requirements of section 37
of NDPS Act.
THE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
S. Name of the case Issue before the Court Decision of the High Court Remark
No.
1 Raj Bahadur Bail application was filed in Court directed that the Bail Granted.
Vs. the High Court. It has been applicant be released on bail
The State of U.P. argued that the search was on his furnishing two
not in accordance with adequate sureties and a
MANU/UP/0339/1990 Section 51 of the Act. It was personal bond each in the
also urged that public like amount to the
Decided On: witnesses were not satisfaction of the C.J.M.
17.12.199 summoned to witness the Agra in Crime No. 406 of
search and recovery. Lastly, 1990, Under Section 17/18
Coram: it was urged that Section 37 of N.D.P.S. Act.
G.D. Dube, J. of the Act is not applicable
to the High Court.
Counsels Therefore, the High Court
Anup Ghosh, can look into the matter
ASG from its own angle.
2 Sewa Ram and Ors. Two bail applications were Court held It is true that the Bail granted.
Vs. filed in the High Court. provisions of the N.D.P.S.
State Applicant Sewaram was Act are in the nature of
arrested on 26-8-1991 for social legislation and it is in
MANU/UP/0204/1992 the alleged offence under the interest of the community
Section 20(b) of the that the real culprits must be
Decided On: N.D.P.S. Act for allegedly apprehended and severely
09.04.1992 being in possession of one punished but at the same
Kilogram ganja and two and time care has to be taken that
Coram: a half Tolas opium for the the innocent persons are not
I.S. Mathur, J. purposes of selling. unnecessarily harassed and
for that purpose the
Second applicant was mandatory procedural
arrested on 10-9-1991 for an safeguards are complied
offence under Section 20(b) with. The social need lends
of the N.D.P.S. Act and special responsibility on the
about four kilograms Ganja investigating prosecuting
in 'pudia' and one kilogram authorities as also on the
opium was recovered from a public prosecutors. The
gunny bag in his possession. public prosecutor has a vital
Court clubbed both of these role to play in the whole
cases and decided by process of reaching the
common order. required satisfaction by the
Court in regard to the
culpability of the accused.
The Investigating Officer the
Public Prosecutor and the
concerned authorities can, by
placing and pointing out the
relevant material, collected
against the accused,
effectively and meaningfully
oppose the application for
bail by showing that
mandatory provision has
been followed and no
reasonable grounds exist for
believing that the applicant is
not guilty of the offences
charged.
Bail granted to both
appellants.
3 Nathooni Singh and All these bail applications With due respect to the Bail granted in
etc. relate to offences under the learned Judges of this Court three
Vs. NDPS and are being deciding Dadan Singh's case applications
State of U.P. disposed of by this common Sewa Ram's case and in two
MANU/UP/0193/1993 order because similar MANU/UP/0204/1992and were denied.
Decided On: questions of law have been Dasarath Lal's case, it may
18.03.1993 raised in these cases. be stated that in those
Coram: decisions the Supreme Court
Shashi Kant Agarwal, decision in Narcotic Control
J. Bureau v. Kisanlal
MANU/SC/0152/1991was
not noticed. The decision of
the Supreme Court is binding
on all Courts under Article
141 of the Constitution of
India. Hence it is evident that
the provisions of Section 37
of the NDPS Act which are
intended to restrict the
powers to grant bail have to
be taken into account in spite
of the fact that the procedure
followed during search and
seizure was illegal and
provisions of Sections 42
and 50 of NDPS Act were
not complied with. It is
noteworthy that Section 37
of the NDPS Act makes no
exception, hence even if the
procedure prescribed under
Sections 42 and 50 of NDPS
Act has not been followed,
while considering bail, the
provisions of Section 37 of
the NDPS Act have to be
borne in mind.
4 Bal Mukund Jaiswal This application for bail has Court rejected the bail Bail denied. It
Vs. been moved by the application. The present case should not be
Narcotic Control applicant in a case under is not such a case in which forgotten that
Bureau Section 8/22 of NDPS Act some small quantity of the offences
MANU/UP/0208/1993 psycho-tropic substance under the
Decided On: might have been planted on NDPS Act are
26.03.1993 the person or the premises of very serious
Coram: the applicant. As mentioned and grave and
V.N. Mehrotra, J. earlier, more than 60,000 people
tablets of psychotropic indulging in
substance were allegedly such offences
recovered from the premises are causing
of the applicant. Court was havoc to the
for this reason unable to health of the
hold, at this stage, that there inhabitants of
are reasonable grounds for this world. The
believing that the applicant is Legislature has
not guilty of the offence thought to
under the Act. Further, the prescribe very
officer concerned has in the deterrent
recovery memo recorded the punishment for
alleged confessional committing the
statement made by the offences under
applicant regarding his this Act. The
dealing with the narcotic offences which
substance in the past. have such
Considering these facts. serious effect
Court was also not satisfied on the health
that the applicant is not of the people
likely to commit any offence are always to
under the Act while he is on be dealt with a
bail. heavy hand. A
person found
committing
such offences,
normally does
not deserve to
be released on
bail.
5 Gyasuddin This application for bail Court held that that the Bail denied.
Vs. under Section 439, Code of search in the instant case has
State of U.P. Criminal Procedure arises not been made in violation of
MANU/UP/1275/1997 out of Case Crime No. 129 Section 50 of the Act. The
Decided On: of 1996 under Section 8/20 option available to the
19.03.1997 of the NDPS Act .Recovery suspect is to choose between
Coram: memo shows that the the officer concerned and a
S.R. Singh, J. applicant was standing near Gazetted Officer or
'SIDHIWALA PUL' with a Magistrate for the purpose of
bag at railway platform No. search and seizure. The
1, G.R.P., Gorakhpur on suspect has no right, under
23.5.1996 at 9.30 p.m. He Section 50 of the Act, to
was apprehended and, on make a choice between the
search, found in possession Gazetted Officer and the
of 10.500 Kg. of charas Magistrate. That right
contained in the bag but appears to be with the officer
failed to produce any valid apprehending the suspect as
authority for possession is evident from the
thereof. expression "take such person
without unnecessary delay to
the nearest Gazetted Officer
of any of the departments
mentioned in Section 42 of
the Act or to the nearest
Magistrate" used in Section
50. The search made in
presence of the Gazetted
Officer of any of the
departments mentioned in
Section 42 of the Act would
not be vitiated merely
because it was not made
before a Magistrate as
desired by the
suspect/accused for no such
right is conferred upon the
suspect/accused under
Section 50 of the Act.
Bail application rejected.
6 Sati Prasad Verma This application for bail Court held that embargo Bail granted.
Vs. arises out of Case Crime placed on the power of the
State of U.P. No. 396 of 1996 under court to grant ball by Section
MANU/UP/1273/1997 Section 8/20/23 of the 37(1)(b)(ii) of the Act would
Decided On: NDPS Act police station come into play only in case
20.03.1997 Dumariaganj, district of an offence punishable
Coram: Sidharthnagar. According to under the Act for a term of
S.R. Singh, J. the prosecution case the imprisonment of five years
applicant was found in or more. Section 20 of the
possession of 6 kg. of ganja Act makes it abundantly
for which he could not clear that where the
produce any licence. possession of contraband is
found in contravention of
any of the provisions of the
Act in relation to ganja, the
accused shall be punished
"with rigorous imprisonment
for a term which may extend
to five years and shall also
be liable to fine which may
extend to fifty thousand
rupees." The expression
"imprisonment for a term
which may extend to five
years" does not mean
"imprisonment of five years"
within the meaning of Clause
(b) of Sub-section (1) of
Section 37 of the Act. In my
opinion, the bar of Section
37 would not apply to a case
where the offence is
punishable under the Act
with imprisonment which
may extend to five years. In
other words, if the maximum
sentence which could be
imposed for an offence under
the Act is not less than five
years then the embargo
placed on the power of the
Court to grant bail by
Section 37 of the Act would
apply. I am in respectful
agreement with the view
taken by Patna High Court
and Karnataka High Court in
the cases relied on by the
learned Counsel for the
applicant. Bail in the instant
case will have to be
considered having regard to
the provisions contained in
Section 437/439, Code of
Criminal Procedure.
Bail application allowed.
7 Devendra Kumar This application for bail has Court found no principle to Bail denied.
Misra its genesis in case crime No. subscribe to the submission
Vs. 139 of 1996 and 140 of that the Sessions Judge while
State of U.P. 1996 under Section 8/20(2), taking cognizance of that
23 of the N.D.P.S. Act offence under Section 36D
MANU/UP/0819/1997 registered at P.S. of the N.D.P.S. cannot
Shoharatgarh Distt. remand the accused to
Decided On: Sidharthnagar. custody until the conclusion
of the trial under Section
15.04.1997 309, Cr.P.C. The power to
adjourn the case from date to
Coram: date is regulated by the
S.R. Singh, J. section and therefore, there
would be no peril of the trial
being lingered for indefinite
period to the prejudice of the
accused. Limitation to
remand the accused until the
conclusion of the trial has
been placed by the Ist
proviso to Section 309(2),
Cr.P.C. on the power of the
Magistrate and not on the
powers of the Sessions
Court. It may be recalled that
Magistrate while committing
a case to the Court of
Sessions under Section 209,
Cr.P.C. can remand the
accused until the conclusion
of the trial. In principal I find
no oddity if the Sessions
Judge after taking
cognizance under Section
36D of the N.D.P.S. Act
remands the accused under
Section 309, Cr.P.C. until the
conclusion of the trial. In my
opinion, Raghvendra Singh
(1983 All LJ 611) () has not
been correctly decided in its
perspective and I would have
referred the question to a
larger Bench but for the
reason that the said decision
does not apply to the facts of
the present case.
8 Union of India The Respondent was Court held that in its opinion, Bail
Vs. granted bail in Special Case distinction has to be made in Cancelled.
Darshan Kumar No. 36 of 1996 under cases where the Legislature Order of
Section 21/8, N.D.P.S. Act, has made a provision special court
MANU/UP/1607/1997 P.S. Vijay Nagar, District different from Section 439, granting bail
Ghaziabad by Sri S.K. Code of Criminal Procedure set-aside.
Decided On: Malaviya IInd Addl. In view of Section 37 of the
23.04.1997 Sessions Judge on Act, two conditions have to
Coram: 16.10.1996. be satisfied before a person
G.P. Mathur, J. accused of an offence
punishable for a term of
imprisonment for five years
or more can be granted bail
and they are (1) there are
reasonable grounds for
believing that he is not guilty
of such an offence and (2)
that he is not likely to
commit any offence while on
bail. If these conditions are
not satisfied, the order
granting bail would be
contrary to Section 37 of the
Act. If an order of bail is
passed which is not in
accordance with Section 37
of the Act, it would be illegal
and in such circumstances, it
is the duty of the superior
court to set aside such an
order. The authorities cited
by the learned Counsel do
not relate to such offences
where the grant of bail was
conditioned by some special
statutory provision
governing the case but were
governed by the provisions
of the Code of Criminal
Procedure. Therefore, they
are clearly distinguishable.
9 Union of India Petitioner filed the instant Court held that accused Bail cancelled.
Vs. application under Section cannot be released on bail Decision of
Devi Saran 439(2) of the Code of under the Act unless and the lower court
Criminal Procedure for until the conditions and granting bail
MANU/UP/1673/1997 cancellation of bail granted limitations imposed under was set-aside.
to the accused opposite Section 37 of the Act are
Decided On: party Devi Saran on satisfied. Looking to the
05.09.1997 10.1.1994 by the Ist impugned order passed by
Additional Sessions Judge, the learned Additional
Coram: Barabanki for the offence Sessions Judge it is but clear
Dr. Maithali Saran, J. under Section 8/21 of the that he has not only
NDPS Act. disregarded these mandatory
provisions, but has even
observed that.
10 Arun Kumar According to the Bail granted without going Bail denied.
Vs. prosecution, 70 grams of into the merits of the
State of Punjab chakras was recovered from submissions.
the possession of the
MANU/UP/1223/1998 Petitioner on 3.3.1998.
Decided On:
03.09.1998
Coram:
M.L. Singhal, J.
11 Dharmendra Gupta The applicant Dharmendra Bail application rejected. It Bail denied.
Vs. Gupta has applied for bail in was held powers of the Court
State of U.P. Case Crime No. 99 of 1997, to grant bail under the
under Section 20/21 of N.D.P.S. Act is subject to the
MANU/UP/1127/1998 NDPS Act. provisions of Section 37 of
N.D.P.S. Act, which clearly
Decided On: lays down that
11.09.1998 notwithstanding anything
contained in the Code of
Coram: Criminal Procedure, a person
M.L. Singhal, J accused of an offence
punishable for a term of
imprisonment of five years
or more (the accused-
applicant in the instant case
is punishable for
imprisonment of more than
five years), shall not be
released on bail, where the
Public Prosecutor opposes
the application and the Court
is satisfied that there are
reasonable ground for
believing that he is not guilty
of such offence and that he is
not likely to commit any
offence while on bail. In the
present case, 260 gms.
brown sugar has been
recovered from the
possession of the accused-
applicant, the valuation of
which in the F.I.R. itself has
been put by the prosecution
as Rs. 26,00,000 which is not
controverted on behalf of the
accused-applicant. In view of
recovery of the brown sugar
of such a huge amount, there
are no chances of plantation
of the said recovery with the
accused. Having regard to
the quantity of the brown
sugar recovered from the
possession of the accused-
applicant in the presence of
the Circle Officer, a Gazetted
Officer, the applicant has not
been able to lift the bar
placed on the powers of the
Court to grant bail by
Section 37 of the N.D.P.S.
Act.
12 Prem Narain Sharma This is second application Court held that the Apex Bail denied.
and Anr. for bail moved on behalf of Court further observed that a
Vs. Appellants Prem Narain sentence awarded under the
Union of India (UOI) Sharma and Atul Kumar Act can be suspended by the
Sharma who had been appellate court only but
MANU/UP/1218/2000 convicted and sentenced to strictly subject to the
rigorous imprisonment for conditions spelt out under
Decided On: 10 years and imposed fine Section 37 of the Act.
19.01.2000 of rupees one lac each of the Therefore, though the
Appellants by the trial court. appellate court has power to
Coram: suspend sentence in relation
Jagdish Chandra to convicts of the offences
Gupta, J. punishable under N.D.P.S.
Act, yet that power is to be
exercised subject to
conditions spelt out under
Section 37 of the Act.
Court did not incline to grant
bail pending appeal.
13 Faraim alias Dangar Petitioner filed present Considering the facts and Bail granted
Vs. application seeking bail. He circumstances of the case,
State of U.P. was charged under the the High Court granted bail
various provisions of the to the applicant.
MANU/UP/1118/2001 NDPS Act.
Decided On:
06.08.2001
Coram:
B.K. Rathi, J.
14 Aman alias Pappu This application is filed by Court held that the recovery Bail denied.
Vs. the applicant with a prayer of huge quantity of the
State of U.P. that he may be released on smack, submissions made by
bail in Case Crime No. 71 the learned Counsel for the
MANU/UP/2578/2005 of 2004, under Section 20, applicant, learned A.G.A., it
N.D.P.S. Act, P.S. Raipura will not be proper to express
Decided On: district Chitrakut. any opinion on the merits of
04.10.2005 the case, the pleas including
the plea of 'joint offer' taken
Coram: by the learned Counsel for
Ravindra Singh, J. the applicant shall be
considered by the trial court
when the evidence will be
adduced, but the rulings cited
by the learned Counsel for
the applicant are not
applicable in the instant case,
because the facts of the
instant case are entirely
different from the above
mentioned cited cases.
Therefore, the applicant is
not entitled for bail at this
stage.
Bail application rejected.
15 Moti Lal Sahu This application is filed by Court denied the bail Bail denied.
Vs. the applicant Moti Lal Sahu Considering the facts and
State of U.P. with a prayer that he may be circumstances of the case
released on bail in Case and submissions made by the
MANU/UP/2582/2005 Crime No. 352 of 2002, learned Counsel for the
under Section 18/20, applicant and learned A.G.A.
Decided On: N.D.P.S. Act, P.S. Rail and without expressing any
04.10.2005 Bazar, district Kanpur opinion on the merits of the
Nagar. case.
Coram:
Ravindra Singh, J.
16 Pappu alias Jitendra The applicant disclosed that Court held that the morphine Bail Granted.
Vs. he was having opium in his and opium are separate
State of U.P. bag. The applicant was contrabands and have been
given an offer by the police defined separately. Though,
MANU/UP/2577/2005 to give a search before any the report of Chemical
Gazetted Officer or a Analyst has not been filed by
Decided On: Magistrate, but he replied the applicant, but its result
02.12.2005 that he was having faith on that sample was having 2%
arresting officer and refused morphine has not been
Coram: to give his search before any denied by the learned A.G.A.
Ravindra Singh, J. Gazetted Officer or any and according to this report
Magistrate. The search was no opium was found in the
taken by the police and said sample and if the
about 5 Kg. opium was calculation is made on the
recovered from the bag on basis of percentage of the
the applicant. The recovered morphine present in the
contraband was identified as sample, the quantity will be
opium by its smell. The 100 grams which is less than
recovered contraband was commercial quantity and
having the weight of about 5 without expressing any
Kg. Thereafter, 70 grams opinion on the merits of the
opium was taken from case the applicant is entitled
recovered quantity for the for bail.
purposes of sample and the
same was sealed. The Bail granted.
motorcycle No. UP-25E-
8670 Yamaha was also
seized. The applicant
disclosed the name of co-
accused as Brajnandan. It
has been confessed by the
applicant that he was
involved in the business of
sale and purchase of opium
and smack. He further stated
that co-accused Brajnandan
was having smack.
17 Jagdish 30 small packs of smack Court granted the bail as it Bail granted.
Vs. were recovered from the appeared to court that
State of U.P. possession of the applicant- recovered article is below the
Jagdish on 24.12.2005. The commercial quantity.
MANU/UP/2496/2006 recovered article was never
weighed. It was neither
Decided On: weighed by the arresting
20.03.2006 officer nor by the S.H.O.
concern nor by the
Coram: Magistrate who granted the
Ganga Prasad first remand to the accused,
Srivastava, J. even the learned Sessions
Judge who disposed of the
bail application of the
applicant did not care to get
the recovered article
weighed. After the
amendment of 2003 of
N.D.P.S. Act, 1985, the
weight of recovered article
goes to the root of the
jurisdiction because only the
weight of recovered article
determines the jurisdiction.
18 Anil Sonkar This is second bail Court held that it is very Bail denied.
Vs. application. The first bail clear from the prosecution
State of U.P. application was rejected by case itself that the recovery
this Court on merit vide was made from the bag held
MANU/UP/2491/2006 order dated 3.5.05. in the hand of the applicant
Learned Counsel for the and not from his personal
Decided On: applicant has argued that the search. Section 50, N.D.P.S.
17.05.2006 fresh ground is that during Act is applicable only in the
investigation the personal search and not in a
Coram: Investigating Officer search of bags and bag held
Ganga Prasad recorded the statement of by the accused. Therefore the
Srivastava, J. the eye-witnesses who were provision of Section 50,
member of the police party N.D.P.S. Act is not
they stated that the police applicable in the instant case.
party did not say to the The applicant has not been
applicant that under able to make out a case for
N.D.P.S. Act, he has a right bail.
to be searched before the
Magistrate or Gazetted The bail application is
Officer. In this connection rejected.
he has placed reliance C.
Ali v. State of Kerala
MANU/SC/1225/1999 :
2000 (1) ACR 347 (SC):
2000 ACC 485 (SC),
wherein it was held that the
settled position of law is
that the person to be
searched under the N.D.P.S.
Act, 1985, is required to be
told about his right under
Section 50 before he is
searched and that is a
mandatory requirement. No
presumption to that effect
can be raised.
19 Yogender Pal Singh This is an application for The recovery of heroin Bail denied.
Vs. bail moved on behalf of the involving commercial
State of U.P. applicant Yogender Pal quantity having been made
Singh indicted in Case from the possession of the
MANU/UP/2406/2006 Crime No. 36 of 2005 under applicant, the provisions of
Section 18/22 of the Section 37 of N.D.P.S. Act
Decided On: N.D.P.S. Act. P.S. Loni, are attracted to the present
22.11.2006 district Ghaziabad. case. The applicant having
been found in possession of
Coram: The recovery of two packets heroine weighing one kg., it
Saroj Bala, J. of heroin each weighing 1/2 cannot be held that applicant
kg. was made from the is not likely to commit any
personal search of the offence while on bail. The
applicant. The applicant and decision in the case of Ansar
co-accused were made Ahmad and Ors. () having
aware of their right to be been challenged by filing
searched in the presence of special leave petitions before
Magistrate or Gazetted the Apex Court it has not
Officer. There is no attained finality. The
specified form prescribed or decision of Apex Court in
intended for conveying the the case of Ouseph () relates
information required to be to the applicability of
given under Section 50 of Section 27 of the N.D.P.S.
the N.D.P.S. Act. The Act and recovery was of 110
applicant and co-accused ampoules of Buprenorphine
though consented for search (Tidigesic). In the backdrop
by the Police Inspector of these facts, I am not
incharge but by way of inclined to grant bail to the
abundant caution, the applicant.
Deputy Superintendent of
Police (C.O. III) was Bail application rejected.
contacted on R.T. set and
search of the applicant and
co-accused was taken on his
arrival at the spot. The
search of the applicant
having been taken in the
presence of Deputy
Superintendent of Police
there was sufficient
compliance of provisions of
Section 50 of the N.D.P.S.
Act. The percentage of
diacetylmorphine found in
the samples and calculation
of total quantity of heroin
on that basis is not
contemplated under the
provisions of N.D.P.S. Act.
20 Janrail Singh Applicant Janrail Singh, Court found that the Bail denied.
Vs. who is incarcerated in jail, categorisation of quantity of Decision of
State of U. P. in connection with Crime contraband narcotics by the trial court
No. 255 of 2007, for the Legislators is for the purpose denying bail
MANU/UP/1845/2008 offences under Section 8/21, of the punishment only. upheld.
N.D.P.S. Act, P.S. Kotwali, Categorisation has nothing to
Decided On: district Varanasi, has sought do with making out the
10.12.2008 his release on bail, through offences. The Legislature, in
the instant criminal its wisdom, has catalogued
Coram: miscellaneous bail those persons, who are
Vinod Prasad, J. application. indulging into heavy dealing
in narcotic drug who cannot
The three apprehended be equated with petty
accused informed the offenders under the N.D.P.S.
raiding party that they are in Act. The Legislature, it
possession of narcotic seems, was also of the view
heroin, which they had that the person should be
brought from Rajasthan punished only for the
through an agent. They possession of actual quantity
further disclosed that they of narcotic and his sentence
wanted to carry the heroin should be commensurate
to Sasaram in Bihar, where with such quantity. This
businessmen contact them aspect of the matter has been
for business. The dealt with in detail by the
apprehended accused Apex Court in the decision
persons further informed of E. Micheal Rai (), which
that an agent from has been relied upon by the
Rajasthan gives them learned Counsel for the
contraband in advance and applicant himself. The said
after sale, his share of sale judgment of the Apex Court
proceeds is given to him. may have a bearing on the
Three apprehended accused sentence which is to be
persons were informed implanted on a guilty under
about their rights under trial but, at the initial stage,
Section 50 of N.D.P.S. Act, when the bail is being
but they refused the exercise considered at a pre-
of their such a right and conviction stage, the said
allowed the raiding party to decision is of no help to the
search them. Searching applicant. I would hasten to
party before searching add here that the aforesaid
accused, searched each of decision of the Apex Court
them to rule out the was rendered in an appeal
possibility of planting after conviction and not at a
narcotics and thereafter a pre-trial stage.
fard was prepared for
compliance of Section 50 of Bail application rejected.
N.D.P.S. Act. Meanwhile,
Sanjai Kumar Tiwari, an
officer of Narcotic Control
Bureau, also arrived at the
spot. The apprehended
accused persons, thereafter,
were searched and from the
possession of the applicant
4.820 grams heroin, which
was weighed on physical
balance, was recovered.
From the other accused
persons also heroin were
recovered. The recovered
narcotic were sealed in
phials after taking samples.
The accused persons were
arrested for the charge
under Section 8/21 of
N.D.P.S. Act. Search,
seizure and arrest memo
were prepared and the copy
of same were given to the
three apprehended accused
persons. On the basis of the
said search seizure and
arrest memo. F.I.R.
Annexure-1 was registered
at P. S. Kotwali, district
Varanasi on the same day
19.9.2007, at 4.45 p.m. by
the S.H.O., he being the
informant.
21 Abdul Jabbar This bail application has Court held that in the instant Bail denied.
Vs. been moved on behalf of the case we are not here at the
State of U.P. applicant Abdul Zabbar who stage of trial. This Court is
is involved in Case Crime merely disposing of the bail
MANU/UP/1413/2009 No. 59 of 2008, under application. Therefore, it
Section 8/22 of the N.D.P.S. cannot be presumed that the
Decided On: Act, Police Station Kotwali, arresting officer will not say
23.10.2009 district Ghaziabad. before the trial court that the
accused was not informed of
Coram: The complainant of this his right under Section 50(1)
Ashok Srivastava, J. case is Raj Mani Pandey, of the Act.
Station House Officer of
Police Station, Kotwali, In the instant case 500 gms.
Ghaziabad. On 21.1.2008, of illicit heroin is allegedly
he was patrolling in his area recovered from the
alongwith other police possession of the applicant.
personnel. An informer met This amount is commercial
him and informed that a car, quantity.
which was coming from the
side of Ghaziabad and going Bail rejected.
towards Delhi was being
occupied by 3 persons who
were carrying with them
certain amount of narcotic
substance. Believing the
information given by the
informer, the complainant
intercepted the vehicle
(Indica Car No. DL 3/C/W-
567).
22 Praveen Kumar This is a revision against the Court held that Section 12 of Bail Granted.
Maurya @ Praveen Judgment and order dated the Juvenile Act is fully
Maurya 18.6.2010 passed by the attracted in this case,
Vs. Sessions Judge, Basti in therefore, it would be just
State of U.P. Criminal (Juvenile) Appeal and expedient to enlarge the
No. 75 of 2010 Praveen revisionist Praveen Kumar
MANU/UP/1184/2010 Kumar Maurya v. State of Maurya @ Praveen Maurya
U.P. confirming the order on bail.
Decided On: dated 24.5.2010 passed by
16.09.2010 the Juvenile Justice Board, The revisionist was
Basti in Case No. 37/2010 admittedly a juvenile on the
Coram: State v. Praveen Kumar date of occurrence, therefore,
Shri Kant Tripathi, J. Maurya, arising out of his bail matter was liable to
Crime No. 135 of 2010, be governed by Section 12 of
under Section 8/20 of the the Juvenile Act and the
Narcotic Drugs and provisions of Section 37 of
Psychotropic Substances the NDPS Act was not
Act (in short 'the NDPS applicable, specially when
Act'), Police Station Section 12 of the Juvenile
Motipur, District Bahraich. Act overrides the provisions
of Section 37 of the NDPS
In view of the fact that the Act in the case of a person
revisionist is a juvenile, his who is a juvenile.
bail prayer is liable to be
considered in accordance Revision application
with Section 12 of the allowed.
Juvenile Justice (Care and
Protection of children) Act
2000
23 Zuber Appellant Zuber who has Court held that he Apex Bail denied.
Vs. been convicted for offences Court in the case of Union of
Union of India under Section 21C read with India v. Rattan Mallik alias
Sections 29 and 25 of Habal has clearly laid down
MANU/UP/3372/2010 N.D.P.S. Act and sentenced that the delay in disposal of
to undergo rigorous the appeal may be a ground
Decided On: imprisonment of 12 years for bail in an appeal against
07.10.2010 R.I. and 10 years R.I. on the conviction for the
both counts with a fine of offence punishable under the
Coram: (`) 1,00,000 (One lac) on provisions of I.P.C. but the
B.K. Narayana, J. each counts and in default same cannot by itself be a
of payment of fine further ground for enlarging a
undergo three years' person on bail in an appeal
rigorous imprisonment on filed against the conviction
each counts by the judgment under the provisions of
and order dated 27.5.2007, N.D.P.S. Act involving
passed by the Additional commercial quantity unless
District and Sessions Judge, the conditions specified in
Court No. 14, Varanasi is the Section 37 of N.D.P.S.
seeking enlargement on bail Act are fulfilled.
during the pendency of the
appeal. There are no reasonable
grounds for believing that
the appellants are not guilty
of the offences for which
they have been convicted.
Bail applications rejected.
24 Shiv Lal Verma The Appellant has been Keeping in view the facts Bail Granted.
Vs. convicted and sentenced and circumstances of the
Government of India under Section 8/18 of case and submissions of the
thru' Inspector N.C.B. Narcotic Drugs and learned Counsel for the
Psychotropic Substances. Appellant and the learned
MANU/UP/0547/2011 Act, 1985 vide the judgment A.G.A, the Appellant Shiv
and order dated 05.05.2010 lal Verma is bailed out
Decided On: rendered in Criminal Case during the pendency of the
31.03.2011 No. 118 of 2006, appeal in Criminal Case No.
Government of India State 118 of 2006, Government of
Coram: v. Shiv Lal Verma by India State v. Shiv Lal
Shri Kant Tripathi, J. Additional Sessions Judge, Verma, under Section 8/18
Court No. 2, Varanasi and of NDPS Act, P.S. B.N.C.B.,
the maximum sentence District Varanasi on his
imposed on him is of 7 furnishing a personal bond
years' R.I. and two sureties each in the
like amount to the
Mr. Sameer Jain submitted satisfaction of the court
that the Appellant was on concerned with the following
bail during the trial and conditions:
never abused the same. He
is presently in jail from (a) The Appellant shall
05.05.2010 and there is no attend the court according to
prospect of the appeal being the conditions of the bond
heard in near future due to executed by him;
heavy dockets. It was
further submitted that (b) The Appellant shall not
conditions provided in commit an offence similar to
Section 37(b) of NDPS are the offence of which he is
not attracted in this case. accused;
The conviction has been
recorded under Section (c) The Appellant shall not
18(c) of the aforesaid Act. It directly or indirectly make
was further submitted that any inducement, threat or
the sentence imposed on the promise to any person
Appellant is of 7 years' R.I. acquainted with the facts of
only. It was next submitted the case so as to dissuade
that the land in which him from disclosing such
plantation had taken place facts to the Court or to any
does not belong to the police officer or tamper with
Appellant nor he had any the evidence,
concern therewith.
25 Praveen Kumar The Appellant has been Court Keeping in view the Bail granted.
Vs. convicted and sentenced facts and circumstances of
State of U.P. under Section 21-B and 22- the case and submissions of
B of NDPS Act vide the the learned Counsel for The
MANU/UP/1999/2011 judgment and order dated Appellant and the learned
03.12.2010 rendered in A.G.A, The Appellant
Decided On: Sessions Trial No. 433 of Praveen Kumar is bailed out
06.09.2011 2005, State v. Praveen during the pendency of the
Kumar, arising out of case appeal in the aforesaid
Coram: crime No. 1778/2005, by Sessions Trial on his
Shri Kant Tripathi, J. Additional Sessions Judge, furnishing a personal bond
Court No. 13, Moradabad and two sureties each in the
and the maximum sentence like amount to the
imposed on The Appellant satisfaction of the court
is of 7 years' R.I. concerned with the following
conditions:
Learned Counsel for The
Appellant submitted that the a. The Appellant shall attend
60 grams of Smack and the court according to the
1.400 KG of opium were conditions of the bond
recovered from the executed by him;
possession of The Appellant
Praveen Kumar, which were b. The Appellant shall not
less than the commercial commit an offence similar to
quantity, therefore, the the offence of which he is
provisions of Section 37(b) accused;
of N.D.P.S. Act are not
attracted in this case. It was c. The Appellant shall not
next submitted that The directly or indirectly make
Appellant was on bail any inducement, threat or
during the trial and never promise to any person
abused the same and is acquainted with the facts of
presently in jail from the case so as to dissuade
03.12.2010 and no public him from disclosing such
witness was examined in facts to the Court or to any
support of the recovery nor police officer or tamper with
was called at time of the the evidence,
recovery. It was further
submitted that The
Appellant has been falsely
implicated due to enmity.
There is no prospect of the
appeal being heard in near
future due to heavy dockets.
The provisions of Sections
50 and 57 of the N.D.P.S.
Act were also not followed.
It was also submitted that
The Appellant Omkar
Singh, having similar role,
has already been enlarged
on bail vide the order dated
31.3.2011 passed in
Criminal Appeal No.
7820/2010.
26 Iliyas The Appellant has been Keeping in view the facts Bail Granted.
Vs. convicted and sentenced and circumstances of the
State of U.P. under Section 21-B and 22- case and submissions of the
B of NDPS Act vide the learned Counsel for The
MANU/UP/2000/2011 judgment and order dated Appellant and the learned
03.12.2010 rendered in A.G.A, The Appellant Iliyas
Decided On: Sessions Trial No. 434 of is bailed out during the
06.09.2011 2005, State v. Iliyas, arising pendency of the appeal in the
out of case crime No. aforesaid Sessions Trial on
Coram: 1781/2005, by Additional his furnishing a personal
Shri Kant Tripathi, J. Sessions Judge, Court No. bond and two sureties each
13, Moradabad and the in the like amount to the
maximum sentence imposed satisfaction of the court
on The Appellant is of 7 concerned with the following
years' R.I. conditions:
Learned Counsel for The a. The Appellant shall attend
Appellant submitted that the the court according to the
60 grams of Smack and conditions of the bond
1.150 KG of opium were executed by him;
recovered from the
possession of The Appellant b. The Appellant shall not
Iliyas, which were less than commit an offence similar to
the commercial quantity, the offence of which he is
therefore, the provisions of
Section 37(b) of N.D.P.S. accused;
Act are not attracted in this
case. It was next submitted c. The Appellant shall not
that The Appellant was on directly or indirectly make
bail during the trial and any inducement, threat or
never abused the same and promise to any person
is presently in jail from acquainted with the facts of
03.12.2010 and no public the case so as to dissuade
witness was examined in him from disclosing such
support of the recovery nor facts to the Court or to any
was called at time of the police officer or tamper with
recovery. It was further the evidence,
submitted that The
Appellant has been falsely
implicated due to enmity.
There is no prospect of the
appeal being heard in near
future due to heavy dockets.
The provisions of Sections
50 and 57 of the N.D.P.S.
Act were also not followed.
It was also submitted that
The Appellant Omkar
Singh, having similar role,
has already been enlarged
on bail vide the order dated
31.3.2011 passed in
Criminal Appeal No.
7820/2010.
27 Shushant Gupta Applicant-Sushant Gupta In the opinion of the court, Bail denied.
Vs. seeks bail in Case Crime the twin conditions as
Union of India No. 57 of 2013 under enumerated in Section
Section 8/20/25/29 of 37(1)(b)(ii) of the Act, for
MANU/UP/1949/2014 N.D.P.S. Act, P.S. Custom grant of bail to the applicant
Department, District for the offences under
Decided On: Bareilly. N.D.P.S. Act are not
21.07.2014 satisfied, therefore, he cannot
be released on bail and the
Coram: bail application is
Anil Kumar Sharma, accordingly dismissed.
J.
28 Manoj Ram Applicant Manoj Ram seeks In the opinion of the Court, Bail denied.
Vs. bail in case crime no. 633 of the twin conditions as
State of U. P. 2013 u/s. 8/21 NDPS Act enumerated in section
1985 P.S. Mardah, District- 37(1)(b)(ii) of the Act, for
MANU/UP/1375/2014 Ghazipur. grant of bail to the applicant
for the offences under NDPS
Decided On: The recovery memo was Act are not satisfied,
08.08.2014 prepared at the spot and the therefore, he cannot be
accused were arrested. After released on bail and the bail
Coram: analysis of 490.40 grams application is accordingly
Anil Kumar Sharma, suspected heroine, the FSL, dismissed.
J. Ram Nagar, Varanasi vide
report dated 4.12.2013
found it to be heroine.
Lastly it has been submitted
that the cost of the
recovered heroin in
international market is about
forty five lac rupees.
This application for bail has
been filed under Section
439 Cr.P.C., however,
section 37 of the Act being
a special enactment, general
provisions of S. 439 of the
Code will be required to be
read subject to the
limitations provided in S. 37
in view of Section 4 of
Code of Criminal Procedure
and sub-section (2) of
Section 37 of the Act.
THE ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
S. Name of Case Issue before the Court Decision of the Remark
No. High Court
1 Gopu Ilaiah and Ors. Petitioners who are accused of Court held that Bail Granted.
Vs. the offences enumerated in the first proviso to
The State of A.P. rep. NDPS Act seek bail in these sub-section(1) of
by Public Prosecutor petitions. Since common Section 437 of
questions of law are involved, the Code can be
MANU/AP/1212/2001 all these petitions can be invoked in fit
disposed of together. Needless cases, but care
Decided On: to consider the factual matrix, shall be taken to
11.10.2001 inasmuch as the provisions of see the letter and
Section 37 of the Act and spirit of Section
Coram: Section 437 of CrPC have 437 is borne in
T. Ch. Surya Rao, J. fallen for interpretation in mind while
these batch petitions. The Act invoking that
is a self-contained Code and provision in
has clearly envisaged the extraordinary
provision for granting bails. circumstances.
Section 37 of the Act is very
much germane for
consideration in the context CRL.P.4247 of
2001:
From a glance at the above
provision it is obvious that Petitioner who is
every offence punishable aged 60 years is
under the Act is cognizable accused of for
offence. It is further clear that raising Ganja
no person who is accused of plants in his field.
an offence punishable for a From the facts
term of imprisonment for five there appears no
years or m ore shall be reasonable
released on bail unless the ground to
limitations contained in conclude that he
clauses (i) and (ii) of clause is the owner of
(b) of sub-section (1) are the field
satisfied. The first limitation is inspected by the
that notice to the Public authorities. Even
Prosecutor shall be issued to otherwise, he
give an opportunity to oppose being aged 60
the bail application. The real years, his request
limitations are contained in for bail may be
clause (ii). In the event of such considered.
opposition by the Public
Prosecutor, the Court should The petitioner
satisfy about the existence of shall be enlarged
reasonable grounds for on bail on his
believing that the accused is executing a bond
not guilty of such offence. The for Rs.5000/-
Court should further satisfy (Rupees five
that the accused is not likely to thousand) with
commit any offence while on two sureties for a
bail. These two are two like sum each to
important limitations which the satisfaction of
the Court shall take into the Special
consideration to grant bail. Judicial
Sub-section (2) of Section 37 Magistrate of
reads that the limitations First Class,
contained in sub-section (1) Prohibition and
are in addition to the Excise Cases,
limitations enjoined under the Warangal.
Code or any other law for the
time being in force on the CRL.P.No.4340
point of granting of bail. From of 2001:
a perusal of sub-section (2) it
is obvious that the limitations Petitioner is
contained in clause (b) of sub- accused of having
section (1) are in addition to grown 22 Ganja
the limitations contained in the plants in an
Code or elsewhere and extent of Ac.1-05
certainly not in derogation to guntas. He is
the limitations contained in aged about 30
other provisions. Therefore, years. There is no
the limitations contained evidence to
elsewhere shall have to be conclude that he
read along with limitations in is the owner of
clause (b) of sub-section (1) of the land where
Section 37 of the Act, so long the Ganja plants
as they are not inconsistent are found.
with the later. The apex Court However, the
in NARCOTIC CONTROL other condition
BUREAU v. KISHAN LAL1 that if he is let
has made it clear that the off, he is not
provisions of Section 37 of the likely to commit
Act have overriding effect any offence will
over the provisions of Section not also come in
439 of the Code in the case of the way when
any inconsistency between once it is
them. Although Section 439 considered that
does not contain any there are
limitations on the power reasonable
conferred upon the Sessions grounds to see
Court or High Court as the that he is not
case may be to grant bail in guilty of the
any manner, but limitations offence. Having
contained in clause (b) of sub- regard to these
section (1) of Section 37 circumstances the
would still operate on such request of the
power of the Sessions Court or petitioner for bail
High Court as the case may may be
be. considered.
The petitioner
shall be enlarged
on bail on his
executing a bond
for Rs.5000/-
(Rupees five
thousand) with
two sureties for a
like sum each to
the satisfaction of
the Special
Judicial
Magistrate of
First Class,
Prohibition and
Excise Cases,
Warangal.
CRL.P.4341 of
2001:
The petitioner is
alleged to have
grown 23 ganja
plants in his field
admeasuring
Ac.2-00 gts.
There are no
reasonable
grounds to
conclude that he
is the owner of
the said field and
he has grown in
that extent of land
23 ganja plants.
Hence his request
for bail may be
considered.
The petitioner
shall be enlarged
on bail on his
executing a bond
for Rs.5000/-
(Rupees five
thousand) with
two sureties for a
like sum each to
the satisfaction of
the Special
Judicial
Magistrate of
First Class,
Prohibition and
Excise Cases,
Warangal.
CRL.P.No.4343
of 2001:
Petitioner is
alleged to have
grown 52 ganja
plants in an
extent of Ac.2.00
gets. There are no
reasonable
grounds to
conclude that he
is the owner of
the said land.
Therefore his
request for bail
may be
considered.
The petitioner
shall be enlarged
on bail on his
executing a bond
for Rs.5000/-
(Rupees five
thousand) with
two sureties for a
like sum each to
the satisfaction of
the Special
Judicial
Magistrate of
First Class,
Prohibition and
Excise Cases,
Warangal.
CRL.P.No.4398
of 2001:
Petitioner is
alleged to have
grown 280 ganja
plants in the
cotton field.
There are no
reasonable
grounds to
conclude that he
is the owner of
the said land
since the
investigating
agency failed to
gather any
evidence in that
regard. Therefore
his request for
bail may be
considered.
The petitioner
shall be enlarged
on bail on his
executing a bond
for Rs.5000/-
(Rupees five
thousand) with
two sureties for a
like sum each to
the satisfaction of
the Special
Judicial
Magistrate of
First Class,
Prohibition and
Excise Cases,
Warangal.
CRL.P.No.4399
of 2001:
The petitioner is
accused of raising
320 ganja plants
in an extent of
Ac.1.05 gets. But
there is no
evidence gathered
by the
investigating
officer
connecting the
petitioner to the
land. Therefore
his request for
bail may be
considered.
The petitioner
shall be enlarged
on bail on his
executing a bond
for Rs.5000/-
(Rupees five
thousand) with
two sureties for a
like sum each to
the satisfaction of
the Special
Judicial
Magistrate of
First Class,
Prohibition and
Excise Cases,
Warangal.
CRL.P.No.4400
of 2001:
The petitioner is
accused of raising
513 ganja plants
in an extent of
Ac.1.17 gts. But
there is no
evidence gathered
by the
investigating
officer
connecting the
petitioner to the
land. Therefore
his request for
bail may be
considered.
The petitioner
shall be enlarged
on bail on his
executing a bond
for Rs.5000/-
(Rupees five
thousand) with
two sureties for a
like sum each to
the satisfaction of
the Special
Judicial
Magistrate of
First Class,
Prohibition and
Excise Cases,
Warangal.
CRL.P.No.4446
of 2001:
The petitioner is
accused of raising
ganja plants in his
field. But no
evidence has
been gathered to
connect the land
to the petitioner.
Therefore his
request for bail
may be
considered.
The petitioner
shall be enlarged
on bail on his
executing a bond
for Rs.5000/-
(Rupees five
thousand) with
two sureties for a
like sum each to
the satisfaction of
the Judicial
Magistrate of
First Class,
Bodhan,
Nizamabad
District.
2 S. Nagaraj The petitioner, who is the Court held that it Bail Granted.
Vs. Managing Partner in M/s. Raj is settled
State and Anr. Biotech Pharma, Hyderabad, proposition of
and was issued summons law that without
MANU/AP/0587/2005 under Section 67 of the NDPS there being a
Act apprehending arrest at any crime registered,
Decided On: time by the Intelligence the Courts shall
05.04.2005 Officer, Narcotics Control hot grant blanket
Bureau, South Zonal Unit, C- orders. In the
Coram: 3A, II Floor, Rajaji Bhavan, normal course,
T. Gopala Krishna, J. Besant Nagar, Chennaiah, this Court would
filed this petition seeking have dismissed
anticipatory bail. this application
on the sole
The facts are that the ground that no
petitioner is the licenced crime is
manufacturer of drugs and registered and
carrying on a pharmaceuticals only summons
business in the name and style were issued. But.
of M/s. Raj Biotech Pharma, at in the instant
Uppal, Hyderabad. Basing on case, the said
the seizure of a stock 67.160 summons were
Kgs of Ephedrine on 9-12- issued directing
2004 from the godown of the petitioner not
Andhra Pradesh Express only to appear but
Services Private Limited, also not to leave
Kalba Devi Road, Mumbai, the premises
and also basing on the without
statement of one K.V. permission. In my
Satyanarayana, who booked considered view,
the said consignment at the there is no
instance of one Hitesh necessity for the
Dhirajlal Mojoria of authorities to
Secunderabad on 8-2-2005 insert the word
from the petitioner, the 'the petitioner
officers of Narcotics Control shall not leave the
Bureau visited the petitioner's premises without
premises on 10-2-2005. permission' if it is
Though the officers could not mere summons
find any illegality insofar as for appearance.
his business is concerned, they The said insertion
found the records relating to of words in
statutory returns from 1-4- summons that the
2004 alone, but they could not petitioner shall
find the records prior to 1-4- not leave the
2004. As the said non- premises without
submission of statutory returns permission
amounts to violation, the said definitely leads to
authorities were constrained to a reasonable
issue the said summons under apprehension of
Section 67 of the NDPS Act being arrested as
directing the petitioner to and when the
appear before the Intelligence petitioner appears
Officer for giving evidence before the
and/ or producing documents Officer. Apart
in respect of an enquiry being from that, as the
made by him in connection alleged offence is
with the alleged trafficking only non-
and seizure of about 67.160 submission of
Kgs of Ephedrine by Mumbai, statutory returns
NOs., on 9-12-2004. prior to 1-4-2004,
I feel that it is a
fit case to grant
anticipatory bail.
3 Kanneboina Ramesh The case of the prosecution is Court did not Bail denied.
and Anr. that on 17.2.2007, on credible grant bail.
Vs. information, the Sub-Inspector However put the
The State of A.P. of Police along with his men petitioner at
through SHO went to Lambadipalli near liberty to move
represented by Public Narapu Chettu, Hamlet of appropriate bail
Prosecutor Korlakunta Village and application before
conducted vehicle checking the lower court.
MANU/AP/0222/2007 and at about 12.25 hours, they
found silver colour Maruti Car Bail was granted
Decided On: bearing Registration No. AP- to one of the
16.05.2007 5-C-2232, under suspicious petitioner on the
circumstances. On searching conditions
Coram: in the car, four persons were specified in the
P.S. Narayana, J. found including the driver and judgment.
another female. The police
basing on the cover of
panchanama registered a case
in Crime No. 15 of 2007 under
Section 8(c) read with Section
20(b) of Narcotic Drugs &
Psychotropic Substances Act,
1985 (hereinafter referred to
as "the Act" for the purpose of
convenience). It is stated in
the application that the
petitioners are innocent
persons and had not
committed any offence and
they had been falsely
implicated. It is also stated
that for no fault of them, they
have been languishing in
District Jail, Karimnagar from
8.2.2007 and the police have
already completed their
investigation and only charge
sheet has to be filed. It is also
stated that the petitioner
moved Criminal M.P. No. 104
of 2007 before the Court of
the I Additional Sessions
Judge, Karimnagar praying for
grant of bail and the learned
Judge was pleased to dismiss
the said application on
13.3.2007.
4 Intelligence Officer, The Complainant-Intelligence Court set-aside Bail cancelled.
Narcotics Control Officer of Narcotics Control the impugned Decision of the
Bureau Bureau, Hyderabad, Sub Zone order of the trial lower court
Vs. filed the petition originally court grating bail granting bail was
Shivakumar under Section 439(2) of to the respondent set-aside.
Cr.P.C. read with 37 of the as it was in
MANU/AP/1733/2014 NDPS Act amended by Act 9 contravention to
of 2001 with a prayer to section 37 of
Decided On: cancel the bail order granted to NDPS Act.
15.09.2014 the respondent/A.1 in Case
No. NCB F.No.
Coram: 48/1/2/2013/NCB/Sub Zone,
Dr. B. Siva Sankara Hyderabad and to set aside the
Rao, J. order granting bail passed by
the learned in charge
Metropolitan Judge, Ranga
Reddy district at L.B. Nagar in
Crl. M.P. No. 1091 of 2014,
dated 20.05.2014, in the
interest of justice and order for
remanding the respondent/A.1
to judicial custody.
THE BOMBAY HIGH COURT
S. Name of the case Issue before the Court Decision of the Court Remark
No.
1 Aravind Mehram Patel The petitioners, herein, Court granted the bail Bail granted.
and another are the accused Nos. 4 to the accused and Decision of the
Vs. and 5 in N.D.P.S. held the tendency to lower court
The Intelligence Special Sessions R.A. detain suspects for rejecting bail
Officer, Narcotics No. 311/89 and 398/89, "questioning" and was set-aside.
Control Bureau, cases registered under manipulate the record
Bombay the NDPS Act. They to show later arrest is
have sought bail. a reprehensible
MANU/MH/0026/1989 practice of recent
origin. In cases under
Decided On: the N.D.P.S. and
09.11.1989 Customs Act, the
prosecution is no
Coram: doubt entitled to rely
G.H. Guttal, J. upon the statements
of the Accused,
which unlike the
statements made to
the police during
investigation, are
admissible in
evidence. But, what
the prosecution does
in such cases is to
procure statements by
threats, assault and
illegal detention and
then present them as
"evidence". That is
not what the law
permits them to do.
They can rely upon
the statements made
by the Accused
voluntarily and on the
basis of such
statements secure
conviction. But this is
different from saying
that the statements
may be procured by
any means and the
accused be convicted
on such statements.
2 Prajesh Shantilal The applicants herein Court granted the bail Bail Granted.
Vaghani were respectively to the appellants Decision of
Vs. accused Nos. 5 and 4 in holding that In the lower court
The Intelligence a case under the NDPS present cases, the rejecting the bail
Officer, Narcotics Act, hereinafter Applicants are Indian application was
Control Bureau and referred to as the nationals. There is no set-aside.
another Bombay N.D.P.S. Act. The evidence of physical
learned Additional possession of the
MANU/MH/0048/1989 Sessions Judge before narcotics seized by
whom the Applicants the Respondent No.
Decided On: applied for bail in 1. The evidence
06.12.1989 N.D.P.S. Special consists of the
Remand Application statements of the
Coram: No. 360 of 1989, Applicants in which
G.H. Guttal, J. rejected the application they "confessed" that
of the Applicants as they have committed
also those of the the offences. The
remaining three narcotics were not
accused. The found in the
Applicants have possession of the
preferred this Applicants, but they
application under are sought to be
section 439 of the Code connected with these
of Criminal Procedure. drugs
circumstantially
Between 23rd July, through their
1989 and 23rd August, statements. There is
1989, three packets nothing on the record
containing 8 Kgs. of to connect the
Heroin, four parcels Applicants with the
containing 21.100 Kgs. specific drugs seized
of Methaqualene in this case. These
powder and four circumstances
parcels containing 23 together with the
Kgs. of Mandrex tablets probability that the
were seized. Some confessional
more parcels addressed statements by the
to people in different Applicants were
countries were also secured by physical
seized. assault do not inspire
confidence in the
prosecution's version.
There is no allegation
that the Applicants
Indian nationals, are
likely to abscond. The
question of tampering
with evidence does
not arise. For these
reasons, the
continued detention
of the Applicants
appears punitive. It
will not be proper to
deny bail to the
Applicants.
3 Prahlad S/o Sheshrao Question was posed in Court rejected the Bail denied.
Rekhe this application pertains bail application and These
Vs. to applicability of held Bearing in mind provisions under
State of Maharashtra proviso to sub-s. (2) of the specific object of Section 167 do
S. 167 of the Code of the Act i.e. to make not however
MANU/MH/0109/1990 Criminal Procedure (the the law more carve out any
Code) in the matter of stringent, also to condition,
Decided On: grant of bail u/S. 37 of prevent release of the limitation or
15.03.1990 NDPS Act drug offender on bail restriction in the
on technical ground matter of grant
Coram: and the Scheme as of bail. S. 167
A.A. Desai, J. codified under the which is a part
Act, I am definite in of Chapter XII
my conclusion that of the Code
privilege under deals with the
Section 167(2) investigation. S.
proviso (a) of the 167(2) proviso
Code cannot ipso (a) has issued,
facto be extended in
the matter of grant of as observed by
bail under Section 37
of the Act. the Supreme
Court a
Legislative
command to the
Section 37 opens with Court to release
non obstante clause the accused on
which does not bail in the
permit the eventuality of
applicability of Code, default to
to the matters complete the
enumerated therein. investigation
Cl. (b) of sub-s. (1) of within a
S. 37 unequivocally specified period.
denies the grant of The section
bail for certain intends to
offences unless minimise the
conditions laid down harassment to
in sub-cls. (i) and (ii) the accused in
are fulfilled. Sub-s. custody in the
(2) proclaims that case of
these limitations are prolonged
in addition to those investigation.
others provided under The Section
the Code and in any instead of
other law. Chapter putting
XXXIII of the Code limitation in the
deals with the grant matter of grant
of bail. It imposes of bail, virtually
several conditions for confers a
such grant, such as privilege on
executing bond, accused to claim
refusing to release on release on bail
failure to comply in case of
with the condition default as
laid down, refusing to envisaged. Sub-
grant bail if previous s. (2) of S. 37 of
convict for offence the Act while
punishable with adopting
death, recording of limitation in the
special reason by the matter of grant
Court, arrest of of bail under the
person who is Code, even by
released on bail etc. any implication,
etc. Such conditions does not
as laid down by the endeavour to
Code are within the embarrass,
contemplation of the proviso to S.
term "limitation" as 167(2). These
envisaged by sub-s. provisions since
(2) of S. 37 of the not being a
Act. limitation in the
matter of release
on bail cannot
be adopted
through the
media of sub-
sec. (2) of S. 37
of the Act. Any
attempt to
extend the
applicability of
S. 167(2)
proviso, to the
matter of grant
of bail under
Section 37
would nullify
the overriding
effect provided
by the non
obstante clause
over the Code.
The applicant,
therefore,
cannot claim a
benefit of being
released on bail
for the offence
punishable
under Section
20 of the Act of
1985 by taking
resort to these
provisions as
contained in S.
167 of the Code
since the
prosecution
failed to
complete the
investigation
and file charge-
sheet within a
period of 60
days.
4 Rajkumar Aggarwal This is an application Court granted the bail Bail granted.
Vs. for bail. The Petitioner to the appellant and
B.S. Rawat, Asstt. is prosecuted under held that he Petitioner
Collector of Customs Sections 8, 21, 23, 25, has been working as a
28 and 29 of the travel agent and has
MANU/MH/0411/1990 Narcotic Drugs & roots in Bombay. He
Psychotropic is not likely to
Decided On: Substances Act, 1985 commit similar
05.07.1990 and under Section offence while on bail.
135(1) of the Customs Since there are some
Coram: Act. circumstances
K.N. Patil, J. compatible with the
Petitioner's innocence
and it is unlikely that
he would abscond, in
my view, he may be
granted bail. I am
sure, the trial Court
will not be influenced
by the observations
made by me in this
Order, and decide the
case on independent
assessment of the
evidence and
according to law.
5 Shankar s/o Vithoba 400 Grams of Ganja is Court granted the bail Bail granted.
Bahare said to have been to the appellant and
Vs. attached from the held that Normally, in
State of Maharashtra custody of the cases of offences
petitioner in the market punishable under the
MANU/MH/0713/1991 place at village NDPS Act liberal
Karmad. The police view could hardly be
Decided On: papers show that the taken in the matter of
26.06.1991 F.I.R. for the offence bail in view of the
was lodged on 20-5- disastrous effect that
Coram: 1991 and a panchanama the narcotics have
M.S. Vaidya, J. of even date was played in the society
produced at the police at large. At the same
station. Statements of time, however, care
three policemen also in necessary to be
appear to have been taken by the courts to
recorded on the same infer that the
day. Since then, no provisions of the said
further investigations Act are not misused
appear to have been or are light heartedly
made. The sample of used by the police
the attached medical Deptt. In the present
article also doesn't case, one of the main
appear to have been grievance urged on
sent to Chemical behalf of the
Analser, as yet. The petitioner was that
learned Advocate for copy of the F.I.R. was
the petitioner contended endorsed to the
that the quantity of 400 Magistrate under
grams was a small outward No: 564/91
quantity as per the dated 25-5-1991 and
the same had reached
Government S.O. No. : the Court only on
30th of May, 1991. If
827(E) dated 14th the F.I.R. was lodged
on 25th May, 1991 at
November, 1985 the Police Station,
there was no reason
published in the for the delay in
sending the copy
Government of India
Gazette, Part II, dated
November, 1985. He
prayed that the
petitioner be released
on bail in view of the thereof even to the
small quantity. Court of the
Magistrate. The
police papers which
were shown to me by
the learned A.P.P.,
did not even show
that the information
of the offence in
question was reduced
to writing or that a
copy thereof was sent
to the Superior
Officer as required by
section 42 of the
Narcotic Drugs and
Psychotropic
Substances Act. The
report of the arrest
and seizure as
required under
section 57 also does
not appear to have
been sent to the
superior officers. The
panchanama also
appears to have been
made in the presence
of private citizen and
not in the presence of
any Gazetted Officer
as required by section
50 of the Act. It is
high time that the
investigating
machinery should
diligently resort to the
observance of the
formalities as
prescribed under the
Act. If that is not
done, the liberty of
the person who is
alleged to have
committed the
offence can not be
allowed to be
curtailed by rejecting
the application for
bail. Therefore, this
appears to be a fit
case in which a bail
should be granted to
the petitioner.
6 Bharat @ Mamul s/o Should persons accused Court held that It is Bail denied.
Vithaldas Thakkar and of dealing in dangerous necessary to re-
Anr. drugs be enlarged on emphasise that as per Section
Vs. bail merely because of section 37 of the 37 Court may
State of Maharashtra alleged breaches of N.D.P.S. Act, which grant bail on
procedural limits situations in satisfaction of
MANU/MH/0666/1991 requirements in the which bail may be two conditions -
course of investigation. granted, specifies that firstly
Decided On: This issue, in relation to the Court can grant reasonable
14.08.1991 the stringent provisions bail if it is satisfied ground of
of the NDPS Act 1985 that "there are believing
Coram: (as amended), has reasonable grounds accused not
M.F. Saldanha, J. arisen recurrently in for believing that he guilty of offence
recent times and is not guilty of such - secondly
requires deep offence and that he is offence unlikely
reconsidered by the not likely to commit to be repeated -
courts, with many any offence while on Act does not
divergent views having bail". What needs to contemplate
been expressed, most of be specially noted is situation for
them in favour of the that from the material grant of bail for
grant of bail. For the before the Court if it non-compliance
reasons enumerated in appears that a of procedure.
this judgment, it is particularly accused
essential that the point is not guilty of any
be very seriously offence under the Act
examined and set at and is wrongly being
rest. Two of my brother prosecuted, bail ought
Judges have recently to be granted. As an
expressed the view that example, one could
a breach of certain cite the familiar
procedural provisions situation where a
of the Act would result seizure of drugs is
in fatal consequences to made and the
the prosecution, thereby prosecuting authority
necessitating the release arrests an accused
of the accused on bail. person on the ground
This benefit to the that he is connected
accused, which would with that material, but
not have otherwise it appears to the Court
arisen and which that the nexus is non-
accrues by default, exists or insufficient.
proceeds on the Section 37 of
assumption that such a N.D.P.S. Act does not
breach is incurable and contemplate a
, consequently, that the situation which would
retention in custody of entitle a Court to
the accused when a conclude that non-
certain acquittal at the compliance with the
trial stars one in the procedure, regardless
face is virtually of other evidence
impermissible. It also which is conclusive
presupposes the or convincing would
position that the still entitle the
procedures prescribed accused to an
by the Act are all acquittal. The short
mandatory and any question, therefore, is
breach thereof is whether non-
incurable and would compliance vitiates a
affect the prosecution prosecution, and this
in its totality. question can only be
conclusively
answered in most
cases, at the trial.
Offences under the
N.D.P.S. Act are
universally
considered to be
among the ones
which are categorised
as being the most
detrimental to all
sections of the
community. Having
regard to the
disastrous effects of
drug trafficking,
particularly to the
children and youth of
the community where
the results are
shattering, different
countries have
prescribed
punishments of a high
order including in
some parts of the
World capital
punishment for such
involvement. An
accused facing a
drug's charge is a
person on par with
any other criminal
who is accused of a
high degree of
violence to society. It
is also common
knowledge that there
are no conceivable
means of curtailing
the repetition and
further involvement
in these offences and,
therefore, to my
mind, the legislature
itself in this country
has prescribed for
good reason, that in
this class of cases bail
should be the
exception and not the
rule or rather that bail
shall be a special
exception and will be
available in the rarest
of cases. This
position cannot,
therefore be upset by
a situation whereby
on technical or
hypothetical pleas
persons who
otherwise would not
qualify for bail
succeed in
circumventing the
other provisions of
the Act which
specifically prohibit
the grant of bail.
7 Sham Ramchandra This is an application Court denied the bail Bail denied.
Sonawane for bail by a person and held that While a Breach of any
Vs. who is alleged to have Court may not be provisions of the
State of Maharashtra committed offences exactly powerless to NDPS act does
punishable under appraise and analyse not infer that
MANU/MH/0563/1991 sections 8(c) read with material said to accused is
21 and 29 of the NDPS appear against the innocent.
Decided On: Act. suspect when
19.09.1991 considering an
application for bail of
Coram: a person accused of
S.M. Daud, J. an offence under the
NDPS Act, the
limitations imposed
by section 37 of the
NDPS Act should not
be lost sight of. First,
section 37 keeps
intact limitations on
granting of bail
appearing in the Code
or any other law for
the time being in
force. Next, unlike
the Code the
Legislature in
enacting section 37
has advisedly used
different words. In
section 437 of the
Code the Court is
enjoined not to
release a person on
bail "if there appear
reasonable grounds
for believing that he
has been guilty of an
offence punishable
with death or
imprisonment for
life". This limitation
is trifling compared
to the limitation
imposed by section
37 of the NDPS Act
which fetters the
Court from grant of
bail unless "the Court
is satisfied that there
are reasonable
grounds for believing
that he is not guilty of
such offence and that
he is not likely to
commit any offence
while on bail". Under
the Code the suspect
is not to be released
on bail if there appear
reasonable grounds
for believing that he
is guilty of an offence
punishable with death
or imprisonment for
life. Section 37 of the
NDPS Act lays down
the converse by
prescribing that the
person accused of an
offence punishable
for a term of
imprisonment for five
years or more under
the NDPS Act, can be
released only if there
are reasonable
grounds for believing
that he is not guilty of
such offence and that
he is not likely to
commit any offence
while on bail. The
words "any offence"
appearing in the
second part have of
course to be read to
mean an offence
under the NDPS Act,
and, possibly one,
which prescribes
punishment for a term
of imprisonment of
five years or more. In
the face of section 37
it would not be
enough to say that
there has been an
infraction of some
requirement of
section 50 of the Act
to entitle the suspect
to be released on bail.
As observed earlier
this Court has more
than once held that
the provisions of
section 50 are not
mandatory, except the
requirement that the
suspect prior to his
search be informed
that the search is for
the purpose of
recovery of drugs.
Even if this duty be
not performed, the
result would not be a
vitiation of the entire
search.
8 Asstt. Collector of Accused is a Nigerian Court allowed the Bail cancelled.
Customs (P) lady, who is alleged to application and Decision of the
Vs. have been arrested as rejected the bail of lower court
Ayabe Atanda Ciadipe long back as on 12-5- the respondent and granting bail
Orisan 1987 by the Customs held that Coming to was set-aside.
Officers while the facts of the
MANU/MH/0369/1991 attempting to smuggle present case, a strong
out of India narcotics plea has been
Decided On: valued Rs. 2,00,000/-. advanced that the
11.10.1991 The Accused was Accused is a young
placed under arrest on woman, and that she
Coram: charges punishable has been in custody
M.F. Saldanha, J. under the Narcotic for well over four
Drugs and Psychotropic years upto this point
Substances Act, 1985. of time. Mr. Maniyar
The record indicates submits that this
that on 9-6-1987, the Court must adopt a
learned Additional humanitarian
Chief Metropolitan approach and must
Magistrate, before take into account the
whom the Accused was fact that the Accused
produced, ordered her is a foreign national
The words you are searching are inside this book. To get more targeted content, please make full-text search by clicking here.
Important Bail Judgements
Discover the best professional documents and content resources in AnyFlip Document Base.
Search