merely relying on
Decided On: the assertions made
22.11.2010
in memo filed on
Coram:
N. Ananda, J. 17.09.2009 has
accepted the so
called indefeasible
right accrued to
accused No. 1 to
release him on bail.
The learned Special
Judge has held that
report filed on
16.06.2009 and
complaint filed on
19.08.2009 did not
take away right
accrued to accused
No. 1 on
15.06.2009. The
approach of learned
Special Judge is
erroneous.
Therefore, bail
granted to accused
No. 1 cannot be
sustained.
THE KERALA HIGH COURT
S. No. Name Of Case Issue Before The Court Decision Of The Remark.
Court
1 Kadukkakunnil The Petitioners are Court allowed the Bail granted.
Appachan and Anr. accused Nos. 7 and 8 in bail petition and
Vs. Crime No. 1 of 1990 of held that Section
Excise Circle Inspector Excise Circle, 167 of the code is
Mananthavady range. a general
MANU/KE/0365/1990 The allegation against the provision relating
Petitioners is that they to investigation
Decided On: along with accused 1 to 6 and enquiry of a
24.09.1990 trespassed into Begur case. Section 51
range reserve forest and of the N.D.P.S.
Coram: cultivated ganja and the Act says that the
K.G. Balakrishnan, J. cultivation of the same is provisions of the
prohibited and made Code of Criminal
punishable under Section Procedure are
20 of the Narcotic Drugs applicable for the
and Psychotropic purpose of
Substances Act, 1985. investigation of
The Petitioners were the crime made
arrested and taken into punishable under
custody on 16th June the N.D.P.S. Act.
1990. The Petitioners It is true that in
contend that they have Section 37 of the
not committed any N.D.P.S. Act is
offence and they are stated that the
innocent and that they restriction
may be released on bail. imposed therein is
Petitioners have also notwithstanding
contended that they are anything
entitled to be released on contained in the
bail under Section 167(2) code. But this
of the Code of Criminal provision has no
Procedure. overriding effect
on Section 167 of
the Code of
Criminal
Procedure. It
could only be
understood that
the restriction
imposed under
Section 37 of the
Act regarding
granting of bail is
notwithstanding
any provisions
contained in
Chapter XXXXIII
of the code.
Section 167(2)
Code of Criminal
Procedure. has
been introduced
with a view to see
that there is no
unnecessary delay
in the
investigation and
to protect the
accused from
unscrupulous
police officers and
the right of an
accused to be
released on bail
after the stipulated
period is absolute.
2 Jiju Haran Petitioner is the second Court allowed the Bail granted.
Vs. accused in O.R. No. 3 of bail application Commercial
Narcotic Control 2003 of Narcotic Control and held that quantity was
Bureau Bureau, Regional Section 37 of the involved.
Intelligence Unit, NDPS Act cannot
MANU/KE/0098/2004 Thiruvananthapuram. be interpreted to
Learned Special Public the effect that if
Decided On: Prosecutor of Narcotic the Public
27.05.2004 Control Bureau submits Prosecutor
that crime was registered opposes bail
Coram: against the petitioner and cannot be granted
G. Sasidharan, J. the other accused under - The Court has
Sections 21(c), 22(a) and discretion to grant
29 of the Narcotic Drugs bail in appropriate
and Psychotropic cases if the court
Substances Act. is satisfied that
Petitioner was arrested there are
on 01.07.2003 and he is reasonable
in judicial custody. grounds for
Investigation of the crime believing that the
was completed and final accused is not
report was filed in court guilty of such
on 18.12.2003 and the offence and he is
case is now pending as not likely to
Sessions Case No. 1318 commit any
of 2003 in the Sessions offence while on
Court bail.
Thiruvananthapuram.
Allegation against the
petitioner is that he
conspired with the other
accused for bringing
Narcotic Drugs and
Psychotropic Substances
from Madurai and to take
it to Mali. For that
purpose first accused was
sent to Madurai to bring
those articles from there
to Thiruvananthapuram.
When the first accused
reached
Thiruvananthapuram
Railway Station by train
Officers of the Narcotic
Control Bureau, who got
prior information about
that, intercepted him and
made seizure of 88.
capsules containing total
quantity of 350 gms. of
Heroin, 120 ampules of
Buprenorphine, 12
needles and three plastic
syringes.. According to
the learned Public
Prosecutor the quantity
of heroin seized from the
first accused is
commercial quantity.
3 Siyad Sessions Court rejected Court allowed the Bail Granted.
Vs. bail application of bail application
State of Kerala Petitioner and held that and held that
he was in possession of Court was of
MANU/KE/0407/2005 commercial quantity of opinion that going
Morphine however there by definition of
Decided On: was no reasonable 'psychotropic
13.10.2005 grounds for believing substance", entire
that he was not guilty of weight of
Coram: offence. Hence present preparation could
J.B. Koshy and K.R. bail application. be taken into
Udayabhanu, JJ. account and
possession of 54
ampules was held
to be not a small
quantity -
Therefore,
preparation seized
from Petitioner
was not
commercial
quantity or small
quantity under
item 239 read with
item 169 -
However, offence
proved, could not
come as under
Section 22(c) or
22(a) but only
under Section
22(b) of the Act -
Thus, first
Accused who was
found in
possession of
ampules seized
were released on
bail by Special
Court - Hence,
Petitioner could
not interfere with
attempt to
influence
witnesses or
threaten them or
indulge in any
activities which
could be
detrimental to
interest of
prosecution.
4 Muthu Kumar and Ors. This bail application was Court allowed the Bail granted.
Vs. referred to the Division bail application
Station House Officer Bench, as the learned and held that he
Single Judge disagreed Public Prosecutor
MANU/KE/0632/2008 with some of the can oppose bail
observations contained in application on the
Decided On: the judgment of a learned ground mentioned
11.04.2008 Single Judge of this in Section
Court reported in Jiju 37(i)(ii). He can
Coram: Maran v. Narcotic also oppose bail
J.B. Koshy and K. Control Bureau application on
Hema, JJ. MANU/KE/0098/2004 grounds
mentioned under
Sub-section (2),
that is, all grounds
allowed under
law. Even if the
Public Prosecutor
opposes, it is for
the Court to
consider whether
such opposition is
correct or not
while granting
bail. In Jiju
Maran's case the
Court observed if
the reasons given
for opposing
granting of bail
were not
sustainable or no
reasons were
given for
opposing the bail,
the Court has the
discretion to grant
bail. Even if the
Public Prosecutor
is not opposing
the application,
the Court should
be conscious and
should consider
whether the
grounds are
existing for
granting bail. In
effect what is
decided in Jiju
Maran's case is
that finally it is for
the Court to
decide whether
the conditions are
satisfied or not. In
Jiju Maran's case,
it is hot stated that
only on the two
conditions
mentioned under
Section 37(1)(ii)
bail can be
opposed by the
Public Prosecutor.
5 K.K. Ashraf This is an application for Court allowed the Bail Granted.
Vs. bail under Section 439 of bail application
State of Kerala the Code of Criminal and held that
Procedure. The petitioner Unless there are
MANU/KE/1166/2009 is the second accused in materials to
O.R. No. 2 of 2009 of the indicate that
Decided On: Narcotic Control Bureau, commercial
13.10.2009 Regional Intelligence quantity is
Unit, involved, the
Coram: Thiruvananthapuram. Court cannot
K. Sankaran, J. The petitioner was apply Sub-section
arrested on 28.7.2009 (4) of Section 36A
and he is in judicial of the Act simply
custody. because an
allegation is made
without any
material that
commercial
quantity is
involved-
6 Mohammed, T.A. and The Bail Application was Court allowed the Bail Granted.
Anr. filed claiming default bail application
Vs. bail by invoking the the learned
State of Kerala proviso to Section 167(2) Sessions Judge
Code of Criminal was not justified
MANU/KE/2345/2010 Procedure. It was in ignoring the
contended, relying on the decision of the
Decided On: decision of the Supreme Supreme Court
05.03.2010 Court that the accused and in
was liable to be enlarged misinterpreting
Coram: on bail, since no the order passed
K. Sankaran, J. application was filed by by the High Court
the prosecution to in the manner in
enlarge the period of 180 which it was done
days mentioned in in paragraph 11 of
36A(4) of the N.D.P.S. the order passed
Act. The High Court by him.
found that, when the bail Astuteness in
application was making an order is
considered by the understandable.
Sessions Court, it was But, that does not
brought to the notice of enable a judicial
the Sessions Court that officer to
the High Court had disregard the
granted bail to a co- binding
accused. The Sessions precedents. Even
Court however dismissed assuming that the
the bail application order passed in
taking the view that the B.A.No.872 of
order of the High Court 2010 need not be
in the bail application treated as a
was passed not taking precedent, what
into consideration about the decision
Section 37(ii) of the of the Supreme
N.D.P.S. Act. The High Court referred to
Court, found that the in the order passed
procedure adopted by the by the High
Sessions Judge, ignoring Court? Did the
binding precedents was learned Sessions
not proper. Allowing the Judge refer to it?
bail application. How could the
learned Sessions
Judge bypass the
decision of the
Honourable
Supreme Court?
7 Vijayan The bail application was Court allowed the Bail Granted.
Vs. filed by the petitioner bail application Small quantity
Sub Inspector of Police who is accused of and held that was involved.
committing an offence Section 37--
MANU/KE/0185/2013 punishable under Section Section 37 of the
20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act would
Decided On: Narcotic Drugs and be applicable only
27.02.2013 Psychotropic Substances in cases of
Act. The petitioner was offences under
Coram: arrested on 20-9-2012. Sections 19, 24
P.S. Gopinathan, J. His bail application was and 27A and cases
rejected by the Sessions involving
Court on 21-1-2013 on commercial
the ground that the quantity--When
petitioner committed the the investigating
offence in this case while officer files the
he was on bail in other final report
cases and that the release beyond the period
of the petitioner is barred prescribed under
under Section 37(1)(b) of Section 167(2)
the Narcotic Drugs and Cr.P.C., the
Psychotropic Substances Magistrate cannot
Act. The petitioner order the
contended that no final detention of the
report was filed within accused beyond
the time stipulated under the period
Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C. prescribed under
and that Section 37 of the Section 167(2)
Narcotic Drugs and Cr.P.C., even if
Psychotropic Substances the crime is
Act is not applicable committed while
since the petitioner was the accused is on
allegedly found in bail in another
possession of 1.2 Kg. of case
ganja, which is not a
commercial quantity.
THE MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
S. No. Name Of Case Issue Before The Court Decision Of The Remark.
Court
1 Mari Appa This and other connected Court allowed the Bail Granted.
Vs. petitions for bail, raise bail application
State of Madhya and involve a common and held that Court
Pradesh question of law as while considering
regards the scope and an Application for
MANU/MP/0162/1990 amplitude of section 37 bail with reference
of the NDPS Act (as to Section 37 of
Decided On: amended by Amendment the Act was not
06.02.1990 Act No. 2 of 1989) for called upon to
short hereinafter referred record a finding of
Coram: to as the. Act. not guilty - Thus,
V.D. Gyani, J. Section 37 of the
Act was not to be
equated with
Section 248 of
Criminal
Procedure Code,
which demanded
acquittal on finding
not guilty -
Furthermore, Case
Diary did not show
compliance of
Section 42(2) of
the Act -
Moreover,
Applicant was
admitted to interim
bail for non-
production of case
diary despite
repeated
opportunities
having been
granted - Similarly,
after being
produced same,
order of interim
bail passed earlier
was made absolute
-
2 Chainsingh Present application filed Court dismissed Bail denied.
Dhoolsingh seeking bail for the the bail application
Vs. Offence committed and held that
State of Madhya punishable under Section evidences on
Pradesh 37 of the NDPS Act. record do not lead
to Court's,
MANU/MP/0257/1991 satisfaction that
applicant was not
Decided On: guilty of offence as
28.01.1991 required in section
37(1)(b) of NDPS
Coram: Act.
K.K. Verma, J.
3 Ramchandra Jagdish Applicant, being charged Court dismissed Bail denied.
Vijaywargiya for committing offences the bail application Commercial
Vs. punishable under Section and held that Court quantity of drugs
State of Madhya 8/18 of the Narcotic at time of deciding was involved.
Pradesh Drugs and Psychotropic bail application,
Substances Act, 1985, did not conduct
Decided On: prayed for bail - Hence, trial, but
29.07.1994 this Application considered that
prima facie case
MANU/MP/0177/1994 was made out
against such
Coram: Accused -
J.G. Chitre, J. However, long
detention of
Accused could not
make Appellant
entitled to earn bail
on that count
4 Babulal and Ors. Petitioner filed this bail Court allowed the Bail granted.
Vs. application seeking his bail application
Union of India (UOI) release on the ground of and held that Such
non compliance of infirmity in the
MANU/MP/0410/1995 section 50 of NDPS Act. investigation will
have to be given
Decided On: due weightage and
08.12.1995 that will have to be
given due
Coram: importance while
J.G. Chitre, J. assessing the
entitlement of the
applicant accused
for the bail so far
as present bail
application is
concerned.
5 Jinat Bi (Smt.) Bail application - Court allowed the Bail Granted.
Vs. Section 437 of Code of bail application
State of M.P. Criminal Procedure, and held that the
1973(Cr.P.C) and investigation done
MANU/MP/0795/1996 Section 37 of the NDPS by the
Act. Applicant was investigating
Decided On: arrested by the raiding agency itself
01.07.1996 party and she has been allowed the Court
put to face the to have a
Coram: prosecution - Hence, reasonable belief
J.G. Chitre, J. present bail application that accused was
not 'guilty of any
offence' punishable
under provisions of
NDPS Act It is to
be noted that
Section 37
provides for bail to
accused - Had it
been the intention
of legislature to
deny the right of
bail to accused,
such provision
would not have
been made in the
Act- It is not a case
of the prosecution
that if the applicant
is released on bail,
she would commit
the offence
punishable under
NDPS Act or she
would abscond or
she is hardened
criminal.
6 Jeenatbi w/o Mohd. Issue in application was Court allowed the Bail granted.
Sabir with regard to grant of bail application
Vs. bail. Petitioner filed this and held that It is
State of Madhya application 437 of CrPC not a case of the
Pradesh and 37 of NDPS Act. prosecution that if
the applicant is
MANU/MP/0443/1996 released on bail,
she would commit
Decided On: the offence
05.07.1996 punishable under
NDPS Act or she
Coram: would abscond or
J.G. Chitre, J. she is hardened
criminal. Thus,
summing up all in
the present case, I
come to the
conclusion that the
applicant, who
happens to be the
wife of Sabir
Ahmed, is entitled
to get bail in view
of provisions of
Section 437,
Criminal
Procedure Code
and Section 37,
NDPS Act.
7 Salim s/o Abdul This petition filed Court allowed the Bail Granted.
Razzak and Anr. seeking suspension of application and Sentence
Vs. the sentence under held that Suffice it suspended till
Narcotics Control section 389 of CrPC. to say at this stage pendency of
Bureau The petitioner was that this court finds appeal.
sentenced under the that the prayer
MANU/MP/0502/1996 NDPS Act. made by appellant
Salim for
Decided On: suspension of
18.10.1996 sentence deserves
to be considered in
Coram: view of the quality
J.G. Chitre, J. and strength of
prosecution
evidence which has
been adduced
tinted with
criticism of
"development".
8 Munnalal Tiwari and The aforesaid Court rejected the Bail denied.
etc. applications under bail application
Vs. Section 439, Code of and held that
State of M.P. Criminal Procedure, limitation of
1973 for grant of bail to Section 37(1)(b) of
MANU/MP/0340/1998 the accused persons who the NDPS Act are
have been arraigned as applicable while
Decided On: aceused Under Section considering the
16.01.1998 20(b)(i) of NDPS Act. application for
grant of bail to a
Coram: person who has
S.K. Dubey and Rajeev been charged for
Gupta, JJ. an offence under
Section 20(b)(i) of
the NDPS Act.
9 Sanjay Kumar Giri Present petition filed Court dismissed Bail denied.
Vs. seeking bail. The the bail application
State of M.P. petitioner is accused of and held that In the
an offence under the case at hand there
MANU/MP/0419/1999 NDPS Act. is allegation that
115 grams of
Decided On: 'Ganja' was
21.12.1999 recovered from the
custody of the
Coram: petitioner. Keeping
Dipak Misra, J. in view the
material collected
against him it
cannot be held that
there are
reasonable grounds
for believing that
he is not guilty of
such an offence.
The contention
relating to non-
compliance of the
mandatory
provisions and
other discrepancies
are to be thrashed
out during the trial.
10 Central Bureau of Petitioner filed revision Court rejected the Bail upheld.
Narcotics application against the revision
Vs. grant of anticipatory bail application and
Devisingh to the respondent- held that there is
Devisingh vide order no possibility of
MANU/MP/0146/2004 dated 9-9-2003 by the repetition of the
learned Special Judge offence by the
Decided On: (under NDPS Act), respondent
29.04.2004 Ratlam and another (accused) in future
against grant of regular and there are
Coram: bail on 23-9-2003 by the reasonable grounds
S.L. Kochar, J. same Court. for believing that
he is not guilty of
such offence. The
learned Trial
Court, while
granting bail to the
applicant, has not
strictly observed
these ingredients in
the order but on
over all factual
scenario of the
present case, this
Court is of the
opinion that since
the
respondent/accused
was granted a
licence for
cultivation of crop
of opium and he
was available
during the course
of enquiry and
investigation and
also gave his
statement under
Section 67 of the
Act, merely
because he
cultivated the crop
on some other land
and that too of his
own, he may not
be debarred from
getting benefit of
bail and if bail is
granted, now after
lapse of long
period and during
this period there is
no allegation for
commission of
breach of condition
of order, no case
exists for
cancellation of his
bail.
11 Chen Singh This is a second bail Court allowed the Bail granted.
Vs. application filed under bail application Small quantity of
Union of India Section 439, Code of and held that n the drug was
Criminal Procedure for present case, the involved.
MANU/MP/0298/2010 grant of bail for the quantity of Opium
offence alleged to have which has been
Decided On: been committed under seized from the co-
20.04.2010 Section 8/18, 29 of accused Narsingh
NDPS Act in connection is 6 kg. and as per
Coram: with Crime No. 1/2007 FSL report
N.K. Mody, J. registered at P.S.C.B.N., morphine found to
Garoth, Distt. Mandsaur. be 2.77%, thus the
actual quantity of
contraband article
comes 120 grams
which is more than
small but less than
commercial
quantity. Petitioner
is in jail w.e.f. 21-
2-07. Co-accused
Narsingh has
already been bailed
out. As per case of
prosecution also
nothing has been
recovered from the
Petitioner. Since
the contraband
article which was
seized is less than
commercial
quantity, therefore,
bar of Section 37
of the Act does not
come in play as it
applies only in
those cases where
the quantity of
contraband article
is in commercial
quantity. Apart
from this, there is
nothing on record
on the basis of
which it can be
said that the
Petitioner is likely
to repeat the
offence while on
bail.
12 Chand Khan This is first bail petition Court allowed the Bail granted.
Vs. under section 439 of bail application
State of Madhya Cr.P.C. The applicant is held that prima
Pradesh in custody with effect facie it was of the
from 26-3-09 in opinion that by
MANU/MP/0187/2010 connection with Crime brushing aside the
No. 192/09, registered at bar of section 37 of
Decided On: Police Station, City the NDPS Act the
11.05.2010 Kotwali, Mandsaur for applicant deserves
the offence punishable to be enlarged on
Coram: under section8/15 of the bail.
J.K. Maheshwari, J. NDPS Act.
13 Prabhulal This order is for the Court dismissed Bail denied.
Vs. disposal of the first bail the bail application Commercial
C.B.N. Garoth application filed under and held that quantity of drug
Section 439 of Code of dmissibility of the was also involved.
MANU/MP/0317/2011 Criminal Procedure by statement made
the applicant Prabhulal. under Section 67
Decided On: The applicant is involved of the Narcotic
13.01.2011 in Crime No. 02/2010 of Drugs and
Police Station- CBN Psychotropic
Coram: Garoth, District- Substances Act is
Mr. Justice I.S. Mandsaur registered not to be
Shrivastava under Sections 8/18(b) considered at the
and 8/29 of the NDPS time of
Act. consideration of
bail. Therefore,
there are no
grounds for the
satisfaction of the
Court under
Section 37(1)(b)(ii)
of the Narcotic
Drugs and
Psychotropic
Substances Act.
Hence, the
Appellant
Prabhulal cannot
be enlarged on
bail. Accordingly,
this bail
application is
dismissed.
THE MADRAS HIGH COURT
S. No. Name Of Case Issue Before The Court Decision Of The Remark.
Court
1 Assistant Collector of The respondent, a Sri Court cancelled Bail cancelled.
Central Excise Lankan, was the bail so granted
Vs. apprehended at Trichy and held that
Paul M.A. Anthony airport where he was to provisions for
board a flight for grant of bail for an
MANU/TN/0243/1990 Colombo, and a search of offence under
his baggage produced section 37 of the
Decided On: 221 grams of brown NDPS Act are
20.09.1990 sugar concealed in lamps. stringent. The
He was remanded to order granting bail
Coram: judicial custody, did not take into
M.S. Janarthanam, J. following which he filed consideration the
a petition in the Sessions gravity of the
Court of Trichy for grant offence, nor the
of bail. The II Additional possibility of its
Sessions Judge, on the being repeated by
sole ground that the the accused when
respondent had been let out on bail, nor
detained in prison for the ease with
over a month, granted which the accused
bail. The present petition could have
is for cancellation of bail, absconded. It was
of which the respondent an improper
had not been able to avail exercise of
because he could not judicial discretion
produce the requisite to grant bail when
sureties as ordered. prima facie there
was enough
material to
indicate that the
accused was
guilty of a serious
offence.
2 Rukumani Devi The petitioner detenu Court quashed the Detention order
Balasingam Rukmani Devi detention order quashed.
Vs. Balasingam challenges and held that the Petitioner set at
Union of India the order of detention F. case on hand in liberty.
No. 801/13/90-PITNOPS the light of such a
MANU/TN/0131/1991 dated 26-6-1990 passed provision, to say
by the Union of India that the detenue
Decided On: represented by the Joint could have been
27.03.1991 Secretary to Government granted bail under
of India, Ministry of the normal law of
Coram: Finance, Department of the land cannot at
M.S. Janarthanam and Revenue, New Delhi all be
P.K. Misra, JJ. under S. 3(1) of the countenanced.
Prevention of Illicit Prudent it is to
Traffic in Narcotic Drugs mention that it is a
and Psychotropic face of life, born
Substances Act, 1988 out experience,
with a view to preventing that grant of bail
her from engaging in the for such an
possession, transportation offence, is more
and concealment of of a mirage than
Narcotic Drugs. of reality, in the
sense of stating
that there is
likelihood of grant
of bail to persons
accused of such an
offence, as in the
instant case, is
nothing but a false
presentation of
reality. Added to
this, the sordid
feature is that the
bail moved by the
detenu before the
Court of Session,
Trichy for her
release on bail had
admittedly been
dismissed and the
further agonising
factor is that
thereafter she did
not at all move for
her release on bail
before any forum
whatever. In such
a situation,
passing of the
impugned order of
detention is rather
not
comprehendible.
3 Intelligence Officer, Petitioner filed present Court cancelled Bail cancelled.
Narcotic Control application seeking the bail and held
Bureau cancellation of bail that offences
Vs. granted to the falling under
C. Govindasamy respondent. various Sections
of Act were of a
MANU/TN/0643/1993 special category to
be dealt with
Decided On: stringent
29.09.1993 punishment and
made with view to
Coram: regulate
N. Arumugam, J. trafficking of
narcotic drugs
which was
continuing
menace to entire
civilized society
of world and that
was reason why
stringent
punishment was
provided by
legislature - Scope
of Section 37 of
Act curtails power
of High Court
under Section 439
of Cr PC -
Respondents were
clearly lander in
rigour of Section
37 of Act and
impugned Orders
passed by
Sessions Judge
were clearly
illegal and
erroneous, vitiated
with every
impropriety and
for said reasons.
4 State by Intelligence The Intelligence Officer, Court dismissed Bail upheld.
Officer, Narcotics Narcotics Control the application
Control Bureau, South Bureau, South Zone, and upheld the
Zone, Madras Madras has preferred this bail so granted
Vs. petition under S.439 read and held that
P. Raja Singh with S.482 of the Code of Passing of
Criminal Procedure for impugned Order
MANU/TN/0650/1993 cancellation of the order by Special Judge
passed by the learned in granting bail to
Decided On: Special Judge designated Respondent in
02.12.1993 under the NDPS Act compliance with
Madras and Chengalpattu conditions
Coram: made in Criminal M.P. adumbrated in
N. Arumugam, J. No. 452 of 1993 dated Section 37 of Act
10.11.1993. did not vitiate
with any illegality
5 Abdul Nazeer Petitioner found in Court dismissed Bail denied.
Vs. possession of contraband the bail
Respondent: State goods. demanded release application and
on bail as respondent held that it was
MANU/TN/0117/1994 failed to complete not the fit case to
investigation and to lay grant bail.
Decided On: final report within
26.04.1994 maximum period of 90
days as contemplated
Coram: under Section 167(2)
N. Arumugam, J. CrPC.
6 Arul and another The petitioners are Court dismissed Bail denied.
Vs. charged under section the bail
Inspector of Police and 21(b) of NDPS Act for application and
others having been found in held that Act
possession of 2 grams enacted with view
MANU/TN/0123/1994 and 30 grams to make stringent
respectively of heroin provisions for
Decided On: powder. They seek bail control and
20.09.1994 under proviso (a)(i) to regulation of
Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C. operations relating
Coram: on the ground that no to narcotic drugs
Thangamani, J. charge sheet has yet been and psychotropic
filed even though they substances - when
are in custody for more there is special
than 90 days. They also enactment in force
plead that the delay in power under Code
sending the property to should be subject
Court entitles them to be to such special
released on bail. enactment - power
to grant bail
subject to
conditions
mentioned in
Section 37 - no
materials placed
before Court to
believe that
petitioners were
not guilty of
offence or were
not likely to
commit offence -
requirement of
Section 37 not
complied with.
7 Arul and Dominic The petitioners are Court dismissed Bail denied.
Vs. charged under Section the bail
Inspector of Police, 21(b) of N.D.P.S. Act for application and
Madras having been found in held that
possession of 2 grams conditions in
MANU/TN/0365/1994 and 30 grams Section 37 of the
respectively of heroin N.D.P.S. Act had
Decided On: powder. They seek bail to be complied
20.09.1994 under proviso (a)(i) to with before
Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C. releasing an
Coram: on the ground that no Accused on bail
Thangamani, J. charge-sheet has yet been even after expiry
filed even though they of 90 days -
are in custody for more However, there
than 90 days. They also was no materials
plead that the delay in had been placed
sending the property to before Court to
Court entitles them to be satisfied that there
released on bail. were reasonable
grounds for
believing that
Petitioners were
not guilty of
offences alleged
against them and
Petitioners were
not likely to
commit any
offence while on
bail and hence
requirements of
Section
37(1)(b)(ii) of the
N.D.P.S. Act were
not complied with.
8 P.T. Joseph Petition filed seeking Court dismissed Bail denied.
Vs. bail. Respondent the bail
State conducted investigation application and
and arrested Petitioner held that
MANU/TN/0667/1999 and others for offence of investigation was
taken of consignment of over and charge-
Decided On: leather jackets through sheet had been
03.02.1999 Flight which contained filed - Further,
382.043 Kgs. of Mandrax mere fact that
Coram: tablets which was Respondent had
B. Akbar Basha Kadiri, psychotropic substance filed final report
J. and 14.618 Kgs. of white by itself would not
powder - Hence, this cloth Petitioners
Petition - Whether, with right to seek
Petitioners was entitled bail - However,
for bail Petitioners had
been served with
charge-sheet
would indicate
prima facie case
against Petitioners
- Moreover,
statements made
by Petitioners
under Section 67
of the N.D.P.S.
Act, 1985 showed
that each one was
very much
involved in
offence - Thus, on
basis of
statements,
according to
Respondent,
prima facie a
suspicion had
arisen against
Accused to frame
charges against
them .
9 M.S.M. Uwize The petitioner is the Court dismissed Bail denied.
Vs. accused in C.C. No. 191 the bail Commercial
State of 2002 on the file of the application and quantity was
Principal Special Judge, held that involved.
MANU/TN/9060/2006 Special Court under ontraband seized
N.D.P.S. Act, Chennai from Petitioner
Decided On: and he was charged for contained diacetyl
16.05.2006 the offences under morphine - Thus,
Section 8(c) r/w Sections total quantity
Coram: 21, 23 and 29 of NDPS 308.5 grams was
T.V. Masilamani, J. Act in crime F. No. whole - Hence,
48/1/7/2001 on the file of absence of
the respondent for the percentage of
alleged possession of 308 quantity of heroin
grams of Heroin. Since contained in
he was arrested on seized drug was
15.12.2001 for the said not necessary so
offences, he came as to render
forward with the petition finding in
for bail earlier in Crl. Application for
O.P. No. 13 503 of 2005 bail - Thus,
and the same was absence of
dismissed by this Court quantity analysis
on 27.6.2005. This in Chemical
petition is filed by him Examiner's report
for bail on the ground of and conversely
change in the presence of
circumstances as narrated diacetyl morphine
in the petition. (Heroin) was
sufficient to serve
purpose in so far
as bail
Application was
concerned.
10 Paramananthan The petition is filed Court dismissed Bail denied.
Yoganatham seeking suspension of the petition and
Vs. sentence and also grant held that
Intelligence Officer, of bail. Petitioner could
not demonstrate
MANU/TN/2081/2008 The petitioner was that there was no
convicted and sentenced material available
Decided On: to undergo ten years on record to find
17.03.2008 rigorous imprisonment him guilty - In
and to pay a fine of Rs. fact, trial Court
Coram: 1,00,000/- in default to had meticulously
Muttaci jeyapaul, J. undergo six months analysed materials
rigorous imprisonment on record and had
for officer's punishable returned a finding
under sections 29, 8(c) that Petitioner
read with 21(c) and 28 of committed an
the Narcotic Drugs and offence
Psychotropic Substances punishable under
Act, 1985. Sections 29, 8(c)
read with 21(c)
and 28 of Narcotic
Drugs and
Psychotropic
Substances Act,
1985 - Reason that
Petitioner had
been in custody
for past five years
and ten months
cannot be a
ground for
suspending
sentence and
granting bail.
11 Palani Petitioner was accused of Court dismissed Bail denied.
Vs. offences under Section the bail
State rep. by The 8(c) r/w. 20(b)(ii)(C) and application an
Inspector of Police Section 25 of Narcotics held that
Drug and Psychotropic according to facts
MANU/TN/1043/2008 Substance Act, 1985 - petitioner is prima
Petition filed for seeking facie guilty of
Decided On: bail. offences under
02.09.2008 aforesaid Sections
of Act - Further he
Coram: failed to satisfy
D. Murugesan and Court that he
Meenakshi Sundaram would not commit
Sathyanarayanan, JJ. crime while on
bail.
12 Tharmarasa Satheesan The petitioner, who has Court allowed the Sentence
Vs. been arrayed as A-3 out petition. It is seen suspended.
Intelligence Officer, of four accused including that the appeal is Released on bail.
Narcotic Control one juvenile accused, has related only to the
Bureau been convicted by the year 2011 and as
learned Principal Special such, it is not
MANU/TN/4982/2011 Judge under EC & likely to be taken
N.D.P.S. Act. Chennai by up for final
Decided On: the judgment dated hearing in the near
27.04.2011
27.12.2010 made in future. Under such
Coram:
K.N. Basha, J. C.C.No. 119 of 2005 for circumstance, this
the offence under Court is of the
Sections 8(c) read with considered view
29, 21(c), 28 and 27A of that the petitioner
the Narcotic Drugs and is entitled to the
Psychotropic Substances relief of
Act, 1985 (hereinafter suspension of
referred to as 'Act') and sentence.
sentenced to undergo
rigorous imprisonment
for 10 years with a fine
of? I lakh for each
learned Senior Counsel
that the learned Trial
Judge by placing reliance
on the confession,
Exhibit P-40, said to
have been recorded from
A-3, erroneously held
offence and in default to
undergo rigorous
imprisonment for 6
months for each offence,
has come for- ward with
this petition, seeking for
the relief of suspension
of sentence.
THE ORISSA HIGH COURT
S. No. Name Of Case Issue Before The Court Decision Of The Remark.
Court
1 State The State has prayed for Court cancelled Bail cancelled.
Vs. cancellation of bail the bail granted to
Surendranath Mohanty granted to the opposite the respondent
party on the ground that and held that
MANU/OR/0313/1990 bail was granted on unless Court is
mistaken statement satisfied that there
Decided On: 23.07.1990 made by the counsel for are reasonable
the State. This case is a grounds that
Coram: classic example as to accused is not
Dr. Arijit Pasayat, J. how unsavory guilty of offence-
circumstances are bail cannot be
created on account of granted.
submissions made by the
State's counsel without
proper application of
mind and/or without
proper instructions.
2 Kokila Bagha This is an application for Court allowed the Bail Granted.
Vs. bail under Section 439 bail application
State of the Code of Criminal and held that Two
Procedure. of the exceptions
MANU/OR/0281/1990 of Section 37 to
Offence committed grant bail are
Decided On: 05.09.1990 punishable under satisfied. Under
Sections 18, 20 and 22 Section 437, Code
Coram: of the NDPS Act. of Criminal
S.C. Mohapatra, J. Procedure she is
to be normally
granted bail. State
of satisfaction that
there are
reasonable
grounds for
believing that she
is not guilty of the
offences has not
yet come since
investigation is in
progress. Husband
is absconding. In
such
circumstances,
though bail is not
to be granted, I
am inclined to
hold that
Petitioner should
be released on bail
for two months
only so that she
can make
arrangements for
defending herself
if charge-sheet is
filed.
3 Soodha Somana and The petitioners assail the Court dismissed Bail denied.
Anr. order for cancellation of the revision
Vs. bail passed by the application and
State learned Sessions Judge, held that grant of
Koraput, Jaypore. Bail bail by Sub-
MANU/OR/0213/1990 had been granted by the divisional judicial
learned Sub-divisional Magistrate was
Decided On: 06.12.1990 Judicial Magistrate, improper. He did
Jaypore. not look into
Coram: section 37 of the
Dr. Arijit Pasayat, J. NDPS Act.
4 Sanatan Sahu Petitioner assails the Court rejected the Bail denied
Vs. order dated 16-1-1991 revision
State of Orissa passed by the learned application and
Sessions Judge, held that there
MANU/OR/0399/1991 Koraput, Jeypore, was nothing
cancelling the bail wrong in the
Decided On: 22.07.1991 granted by the learned consideration of
Sub-divisional Judicial merits of case vis-
Coram: Magistrate, Jeypore. a-vis Section 37
Dr. Arijit Pasayat, J. of Act while
Petition filed under dealing with a
proviso (a) to Sub- case for
section (2) of Section cancellation of
167 of the Code of bail - Merely
Criminal Procedure, because an
1973 accused after
release on bail had
not misused his
liberty cannot
confer any right
on him to
continue on bail
5 Rajendra Panda and Anr. Applications for bail - Court rejected the Bail denied.
etc. Application filed under bail application
Vs. 20(b)(i) and 37(b)(ii) of and held that
State of Orissa Narcotic Drugs and Court found that
Psychotropic Substances courts below had
MANU/OR/0400/1991 Act, 1985. considered facts
involved in their
Decided On: 29.07.1991 proper
perspective, and
Coram: had refused bail -
Dr. Arijit Pasayat, J. There was no
scope for
interference with
orders passed.
6 Satyabrata @ Sarat These two petitioners Court allowed the Bail granted.
Mallia and Anr. have preferred this bail application
Vs. application for bail and held that n the
State Under Section 439 present case, the
Cr.P.C. The petitioners State has not
MANU/OR/0244/1991 were alleged to commit produced any
offence under section 18 material excepting
Decided On: 04.10.1991 and 21 of NDPS Act. the statement of
Lower Court rejected the petitioners
Coram: their bail application. before the police,
K.C. Jagadeb Roy, J. that they indulged
in transaction of
selling drugs
which statement
itself is not an
admissible
evidence in the
case upon which
the prosecution
can succeed
without other
materials. In view
of violation of the
statutory
safeguards
contained in Sec,
50(1) of the Act
and in the absence
of any other
independent
material to show
that these
petitioners were in
conscious
possession of the
incriminating
substance since
the scooter which
they were using
was a borrowed
one and belonged
to someone else
which is born out
from the
Registration Book
of the vehicle, the
xerox copy of
which is
submitted to the
Court and in view
of the fact that the
Magistrate to
whom they were
referred, has kept
the petitioners in
custody for more
than 15 days in
contravention of
Section 36-
A(1)(b) of the Act
and there is no
material before
me to hold that
they may likely to
cause any such
offence while on
bail, I allow each
of the petitioners
to be released on
bail.
7 Bidyadhar Dolai Both these Criminal Court allowed the Bail granted.
Vs. Miscellaneous Cases petitions and held
raise the same question that Non-
The State of law as to whether compliance with
non-compliance with the the procedure in
AND provisions of NDPS Act effecting the arrest
relating to search and or continuing the
Appellants: Ghanashyam arrest ipso facto entitles detention is
Behera the accused to be
Vs. enlarged on bail, and concerned, the
hence are disposed of by
Respondent: State of this common judgment. question is not
Orissa
one of bail but of
the invalidity of
the arrest and the
detention and
MANU/OR/0321/1991 hence the person
being set free and
Decided On: 20.12.1991 his liberty restored
on the
Coram: incorporation
Lingaraj Rath, J. being declared
void - A petition
would lie to this
Court either under
Section 482
Cr.P.C. invoking
the inherent
powers of the
Court to quash the
arrest and
detention because
of perpetration of
obvious injustice
or under Article
226 of the
Constitution of
India to issue a
writ nullifying the
same - Court
while considering
the application for
bail under the Act
is not called upon
to record a finding
of not guilty with
reference to the
accused - Court is
called upon to see
if there is
reasonable ground
for believing him
not guilty of the
offence to record
its satisfaction
about the same
and that under the
Section the Court
is only to develop
a belief and is not
to make a finding
of not guilty.
8 Antaryami Patra Question of law has Court rejected the Bail denied.
Vs. been urged in this case bail application
State of Orissa by Mr. Dhal appearing and held that
for the petitioner Petitioner was
MANU/OR/0177/1993 invoking the inherent involved in a case
jurisdiction of this Court under N. D. P. S.
Decided On: 26.03.1993 Under Section 482 of Act. Therefore,
the Code of Criminal provisions of
Coram: Procedure against the Section 37 of
G.B. Patnaik, J. order of the Special NDPS Act must
Judge, Keonjhar, who be complied with
has refused the even in case of a
petitioner's prayer for juvenile
bail, as he is involved in delinquent
a case under the NDPS accused of an
Act. The said question is offence under
whether in view of NDPS Act -
Section 18 of the Further, release of
Juvenile Justice Act, an accused
1986, a "juvenile" as involved in
defined in Section 2(h) commission of an
of the Act is entitled to offence under the
be released on bail even NDPS Act would
if he is accused of defeat ends of
committing an offence justice and drug
under the N. D. P. S. Act traffickers would
notwithstanding the pursue their
provisions of Section 37 objective of drug
of the said Act. trafficking
through such
juvenile
delinquents
9 State of Orissa Petition filed Court cancelled Bail cancelled.
Vs. challenging the bail the bail and held
Ainul Haque granted to the that allegation
respondent who is against Accused
MANU/OR/0198/1993 accused of crime was that, more
committed under the than 15 grams of
Decided On: 20.04.1993 NDPS Act. brown sugar was
found with
Coram: Accused - Thus,
B.L. Hansaria, C.J.
quantity itself
spoke about
enormity of
offence.
10 Hadiani Dei whether a person who is Court allowed the Bail granted.
Vs. accused of an offence bail application
State of Orissa and Ors. under the Narcotic and held that
Drugs and Psychotropic Clause (b)(ii) of
MANU/OR/0260/1993 Substances Act, Section 37 of Act
hereinafter "the Act", could be
Decided On: 14.09.1993 and has been released on applicable when
bail during the state of question of release
Coram: investigation is required on bail was being
B.L. Hansaria, C.J. and to be remanded to jail
custody on cognizance considered -
R.K. Patra, J. of the offence being
Moreover, normal
criminal law could
taken by the Sessions spring into action
Judge because of non- and bail could be
fulfilment of the open to be
requirements mentioned cancelled only on
in Section 37(b)(ii) of grounds on which
the Act, namely, bail could be
reasonable ground for otherwise
believing that the person cancelled -
concerned is no, guilty Therefore, order
of the offence and he is of Sessions Judge
not likely to commit any was quashed -
offence while on bail. Thus, Petitioner
would continue on
her previous bail
unless same was
cancelled on any
of grounds or any
ground akin to
them.
11 Dukhishyam Sahu Whether a person Court allowed the Bail granted.
Vs. accused of having made petition and held
State of Orissa infraction of the that order of lower
provisions of Narcotic Court directing
MANU/OR/0119/1993 Drugs and Psychotropic cancellation under
Substances Act, 1985 similar
Decided On: 16.11.1993 who had been released circumstances was
on bail during stage of vacated and it was
Coram: investigation was directed that
Dr. Arijit Pasayat, J.
required to be remanded Petitioner would
to jail custody on continue on
cognizance of the previous bail
offence being taken by unless the same
Seamed Sessions Judge, was cancelled on
because the any of the grounds
requirements under indicated in the
Section 37(b)(ii) of the case
Act were not kept in
view while bail was
granted.
12 Jayakrishna Bag and Petitioner filed Petition Court dismissed Bail denied.
Ors. for grant of bail for the bail petition
Vs. alleged offences under and held that it
State of Orissa NDPS Act - Hence, this might be clear that
Petition - Whether, Section 37 of Act
MANU/OR/0158/1996 Petitioner was entitled did not prevent
for grant of bail person from being
Decided On: 10.01.1996 released on bail if
he could show at
Coram: any stage either
D.M. Patnaik, J. during
investigation or
trial that he was
not guilty -
However, it was
because of
stringent
provision and
peculiar provision
with regard to
discharging onus
of proving 'not
guilty' during
investigation, it
would be
improper for
Courts to grant
bail by resorting
to exercise of
judicial discretion
as was done in
case of offences
under IPC or other
Act - Further,
even assuming
this argument was
accepted, then
also because of
very serious
nature of offence,
Court should have
not exercise
discretion way it
was so done while
dealing with
matters of bail
under Section
439, CrPC -
Therefore, Section
37 of Act would
be applicable to
given case at all
stages of
proceeding
including stage of
investigation as
well as during
pendency of case
for trial
13 Umakanta Patel The petitioner, accused Court allowed the Bail granted.
Vs. of an offence punishable bail application Decision of
State of Orissa under Section 20(b) of and held that special judge
the NDPS Act for his Person accused of denying bail set-
MANU/OR/0301/1996 allegedly being in offence under Act, aside.
possession of Ganja could approach
Decided On: 28.02.1996 weighing 650 grams, has Court for bail
approached this Court either during
Coram: under Section 439, Cr. investigation or
Ratnakar Dash, J. P. C. for his release, his after filing of
application having been charge-sheet -
rejected by the Special Such right could
Judge, Bhawani-patna. not be curtailed/
abridged by any
statute - Further, it
was observed that
certain provisions
including Section
50 of Act were
mandatory and
non-observance
thereof vitiates
trial - Section 37
of Act was dealt
with some
limitation - And
these limitations
were inconsistent
with
corresponding
provisions of
Cr.P.C. - Thus,
due to infraction
of requirements of
Section 50 of Act,
Accused was
entitled to be
released on bail.
14 Ghanashyam Palai and In these two applications Court allowed the Bail granted.
Pathani Mal for bail, common bail application
Vs. question of law relating and held that In
State of Orissa to applicability of the present cases,
Section 37 of the NDPS the sentence
MANU/OR/0205/1996 Act arises and as such which has been
both the matters have imposed in each
Decided On: 24.04.1996 been heard one after the case is less than 5
other and the learned years. While
Coram: Standing Counsel has applying the
P.K. Misra, J.
also been heard in both provision of
the cases. Section 37 of the
Act the appellate
Court has to
consider the
punishment which
has already been
imposed and not
"punishment
which could have
been imposed". In
other words, while
applying the
provision of
Section 37 of the
Act, the
expression, no
person accused of
an offence
punishable with a
term of
imprisonment for
5 years or more,
should necessarily
be interpreted to
mean, no person
convicted of an
offence and
sentenced to a
term of
imprisonment for
5 years or more.
Therefore, in all
such case where
the actual
punishment
inflicted by the
trial Court in
imprisonment for
a term less than 5
years, the
embargo imposed
under Section 37
of the Act would
be inapplicable. If
such an
interpretation is
not given,
startling results
may follow.
Experience shows
that in many cases
keeping in view
the nature of the
offence and the
quantum of
contraband
articles seized, the
actual punishment
inflicted is for a
term much less
than 5 years and
the rigours of
Section 37 of the
Act are to be
applied to such
cases, in majority
of the cases, the
period of
imprisonment
inflicted by the
trial Court would
be over by the
time the appeals
are taken up for
hearing,
considering the
alarming back-log
of cases pending
in the High Court.
15 Balbir Singh This was an application Court allowed the Bail granted.
Vs. under Section 439 of the bail application
State of Orissa Code of Criminal and held that there
Procedure for releasing was no material
MANU/OR/0309/1996 the petitioner on bail. produced
The petitioner is accused indicating that
Decided On: 02.05.1996 of having committed Petitioner was
offences under Section earlier involved in
Coram: 20(b) of the NDPS Act any offence in
P.K. Misra, J. and Section 47(a) of the which case it
Bihar & Orissa Excise could have been
Act. assumed that he
was likely to
commit any
offence in future
if released on bail
- It was no doubt
true that Petitioner
allegedly escaped
while being
intercepted by
police and was
apprehended after
lapse of about
four months or so
- However, from
aforesaid facts -
Petitioner was
likely to commit
any offence while
on bail, as there
was no record of
any criminal
conduct on part of
Petitioner on any
earlier occasion.
16 Prasanjeet Basu Mallick The petitioner is in jail Court allowed the Bail Granted.
Vs. custody since 7-5-1992 bail application
State of Orissa on the allegation that he and held that in
has committed offence peculiar
MANU/OR/0331/1996 Under Section 21 of the circumstances of
Narcotic Drugs and this case, as
Decided On: 24.07.1996 Psychotropic Substances indicated
Act (hereinafter referred hereunder, this
Coram: to as "N.D.P.S. Act"). It Court was
P.K. Misra, J.
is alleged that the inclined to release
petitioner along with Petitioner on bail -
another accused person Petitioner was a
was found in possession young man and as
of brown sugar. per prosecution
case he had
This is an application become a drug-
under Section 459 of the addict - It was
Code of Criminal reasonable to
Procedure. assume that
during this period
of more than four
years in jail, he
must have kicked
his bad habit - It
was submitted that
he was sole bread
earner of his
family - Though
charge sheet had
not been filed in
stipulated period,
Petitioner could
not avail of said
right, possibly
because there was
a lot of doubt
regarding
applicability of
provision of
Section 167(2),
Proviso, of the Cr.
P.C. to accused
persons alleged to
have committed
offences under the
N.D.P.S. Act -
Thereafter, by
time Petitioner
thought of
availing said right,
subsequent
decision of
Supreme Court
was in field - Co-
accused person
was released on
bail by applying
provision of
Section 167(2),
proviso, of the Cr.
P.C obviously
because he had
availed of
opportunity and
filed application at
proper time -
Keeping in view
aforesaid special
circumstances and
liberal spirit of
decision, this
Court directed that
Petitioner may be
released on bail.
17 Madan Mohan Bhanja This relates to an Court rejected the Bail denied.
Deo application for hail bail application
Vs. prayed under Section and held that
Union of India (UOI) 439 of the Code of According to
Criminal Procedure, Section 37, every
MANU/OR/0329/1998 1973. Keeping in view offence
the fact that petitioner is punishable under
Decided On: 18.03.1998 involved for an offence the Act are
under Section 20(b)(i) cognizable
Coram: and Section 21 of the offences and no
P.K. Tripathy, J.
NDPS Act the bail person, accused of
application has to be an offence,
read as an application punishable for a
under Section 439 of the term of
Code read with Section imprisonment for
37(1) of the Act. five years or more
shall be released
on bail or on his
own bond if there
exists a prima
facie case and
unless the Court is
satisfied that if
released on bail
the
offender/accused
shall not repeat
commission of
same type of
offences. This
restriction is
notwithstanding
anything
contained in the
Code, relating to
bail. The
provision of law
being so stringent
the matter relating
to bail cannot and
should not be
dealt with lightly
and casually.
Since a prima
facie case is made
out against the
petitioner prayer
for bail is rejected.
18 Srikanta Dash The learned Judge, Court rejected the Bail granted.
Vs. Special Court, bail application
State of Orissa Dhenkanal having and held that -For
refused the petitioner's pre-trial release of
MANU/OR/0005/2002 prayer for bail in Special the accused from
Case No. 4 of 2001 jail custody
Decided On: 23.11.2001 arising out of Hindol cannot be
P.S. Case No. 36 of considered Under
Coram: 2001 under Section Section 439 of Cr.
M. Papanna, J. 20(a) of the Narcotic P.C. ignoring the
Drugs and Psychotropic mandatory
substances Act, 1985 (in provisions of
short N.D.P.S. Act), he Section 37 of
has approached this NDPS Act.
Court under Section 439
Cr.P.C. seeking his
release on bail.
19 Binod Kumar Gupta his is an application Court dismissed Bail denied.
Vs. under Section 439 the bail
State of Orissa Cr.P.C. filed by the application and
petitioner seeking held that bar in
MANU/OR/0012/2002 pretrial bail in Plant Site releasing
Rourkela P. S. Case No. Petitioner on bail
Decided On: 23.11.2001 30/2001 corresponding even if he had
to G. R. Case incarcerated for
Coram: No.121/2001 now sub- about year before
M. Papanna, J. judice before the learned being found guilty
Addl. Sessions Judge, of offence with
Rourkela. which he had been
charged by
ignoring
mandatory
requirements of
Section 37 of the
Act and condition
governing grant of
bail under
Criminal
Procedure Code.
20 Surendra Patra The petitioner Court dismissed Bail denied.
Vs. approached this Court the bail
State of Orissa under Section 439 of the application and
Code of Criminal held that in view
MANU/OR/0584/2002 Procedure seeking pre- of Section
trial bail in connection 37(1)(a)(b) of the
Decided On: 09.01.2002 with Badbazar P.S. Case N.D.P.S. Act and
No. 34/ 2000 also in the light of
Coram: corresponding to G.R. the present
M. Papanna, J.
Case No. 16/ 2000 now position of law is
sub-judice before the discussed above. I
learned Sessions Judge- hold that there is
cum-Special Judge, no reasonable
Berhampur, his prayer
for bail having been ground for
refused by the aforesaid
Court. believing that the
accused is not
guilty of the
alleged offence
under Section
18/20(b) of the
N.D.P.S. Act,
1985, and for that
reason, I cannot
also hold that the
petitioner will not
commit any
offence in future
if released on bail
for which the
prayer for bail
made by the
petitioner being
not entertainable
is hereby refused
but, however, the
learned trial Judge
is hereby directed
to hear the
proceeding
expeditiously so
as to dispose of
the same on its
own merit on the
basis of legal
evidence within
six months from
the date of
communication of
the order without
being influenced
by any
observation made
in this order.
THE PATNA HIGH COURT
S. No. Name Of Case Issue Before The Court Decision Of The Remark.
Court
1 Tribhuwan Kharwar Question in this case is Court dismissed the Bail denied.
Vs. to be decided as to bail application and
State of Bihar whether the restrictions held that infraction
placed on the powers of of section 50 and
MANU/BH/0166/1993 the Court to grant bail in 42(1) is not material
certain offences under while considering
Decided On: 20.12.1993 the amended Section 37 the bail application.
of the NDPS Act, are
Coram: applicable to the High
S.K. Chattopadhyay , J. Court while exercising
its power under Section
439 of the CrPC.
2 Union of India (UOI) This is an application Court allowed the Bail cancelled.
Vs. under Section 482 read petition seeking Order of the
State of Bihar and Anr. with Section 439(2) of cancellation of bail session judge
the Code of Criminal and held that present granting bail
MANU/BH/0212/1994 Procedure for setting case was under set-aside.
aside the order dated Narcotic Drugs and
Decided On: 10.02.1994 29.6.1993 passed by the Psychotropic
Sessions Judge, West Substances Act and
Coram: Chumparan in O.C. Case opp. party No. 2
Loknath Prasad , J. No. 3/93 through which appeared to be
opp. party No. 2 Noor professional
Mohammad Mian was smuggler - Court has
granted bail. no power to grant
bail in arbitrary
manner in view of
Section 37 of the
said Act - If there
was delay of about
three months in
preferring petition
for cancellation, then
also it could not be
said that present
petition was not
maintainable due to
lapse of time when
admittedly entire
order granting bail to
opp. party No. 2 was
arbitrary and illegal
exercise of
jurisdiction -
Impugned order set
aside.
3 Kamlesh Kumar and These two criminal Court allowed the Bail granted.
Ors. miscellaneous bail application and
Vs. applications have been held that If two
State of Bihar referred to Division possible and
Bench for consideration. reasonable
MANU/BH/0148/1994 The questions that arises interpretation can be
consideration are as to put upon a penal
Decided On: 25.04.1994 whether in spite of the provision, the Court
limitation imposed must lean towards
Coram: under Section 37(1)(b) that construction
R.N. Sahay and P.K. of the NDPS Act with which exempts the
Deb , JJ. regard to grant of bail an subject from penalty
accused who is booked rather than which
under Section 20 of the imposes penalty. It is
Act is entitled to bail if not competent for
the stringent measures the court to stretch
and formalities the meaning of art
incorporated in the Act expression used by
for arrest and seizure is Legislature in order
not literally complied. to carry out the
intention of the
Legislature: Tolaram
v. State of Bombay
A.I.R. 1954 SC 96.
4 Bilas Singh Petitioner filed bail Court dismissed the Bail denied.
Vs. application under bail application and
State of Bihar section 439 of the CrpC held that as we have
for the offence notice that the police
MANU/BH/0137/1994 committed by under had gone for
section 16 of the NDPS investigation in
Decided On: 02.06.1994 Act. connection with a
case relating to
Coram: offence under the
S.K. Chattopadhyay , J. Indian Penal Code
and during such
investigation when
they reached the
house of the
petitioner they found
that 1 Kg. Ganja was
kept in his house. In
such view of the
matter, in my
opinion, it cannot be
said that the police
had prior
information before
the investigation that
ganja was kept in the
house of the
petitioner. On these
facts the search and
seizure cannot be
held to be illegal in
view of the decisions
of the Supreme
Court in State of
Punjab v. Balbir
Singh.
5 Satyendra Sah @ Petition filed for bail at Court allowed bail Bail Granted.
Churabhu Sah the pre trial stage. The application and held
Vs. petitioner was booked In the instant case,
State of Bihar under 22, 27 and 32 of the petitioner is a
NDPS Act. petty businessman.
MANU/BH/0121/1996 There is no material
on the record to
Decided On: 25.05.1995 suggest his
association with the
Coram: persons who have
N.K. Sinha , J. the reputation of
indulging an activity
which constitutes
offence under the
NDPS Act. There is
nothing to suggest
that prior to his
arrest in the case in
question, he had
been ever suspended
or made an accused
for committing any
offence under the
Act. Since the
recovery was made
in contravention of
mandatory
provisions of Section
50, the petitioner
cannot be, prima
facie, held
responsible for
unlawful possession
of the heroin and in
such a case, this
Court has no
hesitation in
recording the
satisfaction that
there are reasonable
grounds for
believing that the
petitioner is not
guilty of such
offence and that he
is not likely to
commit any offence
while on bail.
6 Dipak Kumar Singh @ The petitioner was found Court rejected the Bail denied.
Dipak Kumar in possession of 1 pond bail application and
Vs. of heroin as per the first held that Power of
The State of Bihar information report as Court to release an
also the seizure memo. accused under
MANU/BH/0238/2007 The allegation is that Section 37 is
police, having learnt that dependent on a
Decided On: 09.08.2007 some persons were finding to be
likely to deal in heroin recorded by it that
Coram: in Gandhi Maidan, had accused had not
Dharnidhar Jha , J. put itself on wait and committed such
then the seizure was offence and that
made from the petitioner there was no
and another accused likelihood that he
Amit Kumar. will not commit such
Hence this bail offence while on
application. bail-These two
findings are sine qua
non for exercising
jurisdiction under
Section 37.
THE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
S. No. Name Of Case Issue Before The Court Decision Of The Court Remark.
1 Ram Sarup alias Sarup This is a petition filed by Court dismissed the bail Bail
Chand the petitioner under application and held that denied.
Vs. Section 439, Code of powers of High Court to
State of Haryana Criminal Procedure, for grant bail under Section 439
grant of bail during the of Cr.PC are subject to
MANU/PH/0658/1992 pendency of the trial on limitations contained in
First Information Report amended Section 37 of Act
Decided On: 14.05.1992 No. 130 dated 15-4-1992 and restrictions placed on
registered at Police power of Court under said
Coram: Station, Samalkha, under section are applicable to
A.S. Nehra, J. Section 17 of NDPS Act. High Court also in matter of
granting bail - In this bail
application, there is no
reasonable ground for
believing that petitioner is
not guilty of offence under
Section 17 of Act - There is
also no reasonable ground for
believing that petitioner is
not likely to commit such
offence while on bail .
2 Rafiq Mohd. and Anr. The petitioners who seek Court dismissed the bail Bail
Vs. bail are alleged to have application and held that denied.
State of Punjab been in possession of 85 provisions contained in
bags of poppy husk, each Section 37 of Act, which are
MANU/PH/0686/1994 bag containing 35 kgs. in negative terms, straight
The bail is asked for on way limit the scope of
Decided On: 06.05.1994 the solitary ground that applicability of provisions of
the police has not put up Cr.P.C. regarding bail - Thus,
Coram: the challan within 90 days it cannot be held that High
V.K. Bali, J. as required under Section Court has power to grant bail
167(2) of the Code of under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.
Criminal Procedure. - Such powers are, of course,
available but same are
subject to limitations
prescribed under Section 37
of Act - Mere fact that
challan has not been put in
within statutory period as
envisaged under provisions
of Cr.P.C., no right accrues
to petitioner to ask for bail as
matter of fact.
3 Natha Singh Offence committed Court rejected the bail Bail
Vs. punishable under Section application and held that t is denied.
State of Punjab 15/61 of NDPS Act. evident that the provisions of
Petitioner filed Section 167(2) proviso,
MANU/PH/0714/1994 application for bail. Cr.P.C. do not override the
provisions of Section 37 of
Decided On: 14.11.1994 the Act. The State has
opposed the bail application
Coram: and it has shown that there is
Sarojeni Seksena, J. a prima facie case under
Section 18 of the Act against
the accused-petitioner.
4 Mukhtiar Singh Petitioner filed bail Court dismissed the bail Bail
Vs. application. He was application and held that If denied.
State of Punjab accused for offence the intention of the
punishable under the legislature would have been
MANU/PH/0871/1995 NDPS Act. that this provision should be
followed even when a
Decided On: 12.10.1995 vehicle is to be searched,
which is alleged to be in
Coram: possession of the accused,
Sarojeni Seksena, J. then the phraseology of this
section would have been
more comprehensive,
inclusive of vehicle,
conveyance etc. In my
considered view, if the
accused is in possession of a
contraband article, may be on
his body, may be in anything
which he is carrying on his
body, then the provisions of
Section 50 are required to be
followed, but if the
contraband is found in a
vehicle which is being driven
by an accused or wherein the
accused persons are sitting,
then the provisions of
Section 50 of the Act are not
to be adhered to. Further, it is
a case of chance recovery.
On both these counts, I find
that if the provisions of
section are not adhered to,
that will not entitle the
petitioner to be enlarged on
bail.
5 Balwinder Singh Present bail application Court dismissed the bail Bail
Vs. filed under Section 439 of application and held that denied.
State of Punjab Cr.PC for granting bail ground of bail not be made
against registrerd case out in view of stringent
MANU/PH/0935/1997 under Section 22 and 37 provisions of Section 37 of
of Act Act - Therefore, bail
Decided On: 07.01.1997 application is declined
Coram:
R.L. Anand, J.
6 Gopi Ram Offence under Section 20 Court dismissed the bail Bail
Vs. of N.D.P.S. Act-- application and held that denied.
State of Haryana Recovery of 1 Kg. 600 Section 37 of NDPS Act,
gms. Of charas-- 1985, stands like a rock
MANU/PH/1008/1998 Allegations of non- against the accused so far as
compliance with Section grant of bail is concerned.
Decided On: 27.08.1998 50. Application for bail. Court can allow bail only if it
has reasonable feeling that
Coram: the accused may not have
M.L. Singhal, J. committed the offence and
further if the accused is
allowed bail, he will not
commit such offence.
7 Sukha Singh Petitioner prayed for bail. Court allowed the bail Bail
Vs. He was found in application and held granted.
State of Punjab possession of 30 Recovery not witnessed by
kilograms of poppy husk any independent witness--
MANU/PH/1012/1998 was recovered from the Nor by Gazetted Officer or
possession of the Magistrate--Non- compliance
Decided On: 01.12.1998 Petitioner on July 12. with Section 50.
1998.
Coram:
M.L. Singhal, J.
8 Mohinder Singh Present petition filed Court allowed the bail Bail
Vs. under Section 439 of the application. granted.
State of Punjab Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (CrPC)
MANU/PH/0147/2001 for seeking bail. Offence
committed punishable
Decided On: 23.11.2000 under Sections 22, 61 and
85 of the NDPS Act.
9 Sukhbir Pal Singh Offence committed Court allowed the bail Bail
Vs. punishable under Sections petition and held that tt was granted.
State of Punjab 21, 65 and 85 of the not disputed that the
NDPS Act. Present Investigating Officer was
MANU/PH/0119/2001 petition filed seeking bail. also the first informant.
Petitioner was earlier
Decided On: 11.12.2000 involved in the offence -
Panchayat of the village in
Coram: which the Petitioner resides,
S.S. Nijjar, J. had passed a resolution -
Resolution was stated that
the Petitioner had been taken
away by the police - Thus,
prima facie, it appears that
the whole case has been
concocted against the
Petitioner.
10 Gurmeet Singh Offence committed Court allowed the bail Bail
Vs. punishable under Sections petition and held that granted.
State of Punjab 18 and 37 of the NDPS Petitioner was entitled to
Act. Present petition filed bail. It was directed that the
MANU/PH/0128/2001 under Section 439 of the Petitioner be released on bail
Code of Criminal on furnishing two sureties to
Decided On: 15.12.2000 Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) the satisfaction of Magistrate
for seeking bail - Hence, petition allowed.
Coram:
K.S. Grewal, J.
11 Amarjit Singh alias Offence committed Court allowed the bail Bail
Pamma punishable under Section petition and held that there Granted.
Vs. 50 of the NDPS Act was nothing placed on the
State of Punjab 1985. Petition filed for record that the Petitioner was
bail. earlier involved in the
MANU/PH/0175/2001 offence under the NDPS Act
Decided On: 17.01.2001
Coram:
S.S. Nijjar, J.
12 Babbar Singh Offence committed Court dismissed the bail Bail
Vs. punishable under Section application and held that s denied.
State of Punjab 67(c) of NDPS Act. the Petitioner was found in
Present petition filed for possession of 320 kilograms
MANU/PH/0282/2001 bail. (grams ?) of opium and there
being no circumstances
Decided On: 22.03.2001 available on the record on the
basis of which a satisfaction
Coram: can be recorded at the stage
Amar Dutt, J. that the Petitioner had not
committed the offence or
that, if released on bail, he
was not likely to commit any
such offence, no ground for
bail was made out.
13 Mohinder Singh Petitioner was in custody Court dismissed the bail Bail
Vs. at Central Jail under petition and held that there denied.
State of Punjab Section 18 of the NDPS was no reason to allow bail
Act. Present application to Petitioners because of the
MANU/PH/1402/2001 filed for bail. bar created by Section 37 of
the NDPS Act - So far as the
Decided On: 25.07.2001 merits of the case were
concerned, they can be
Coram: appreciated only at the trial.
M.L. Singhal, J.
14 Natho Offence committed Court allowed the bail Bail
Vs. punishable under Section application and held that granted.
State of Punjab 20 of NDPS Act. Petition Petitioner was not given any
filed seeking bail under offer to get herself searched
MANU/PH/1225/2001 section 439 of the CrPC. in the presence of a
Magistrate or a Gazetted
Decided On: 02.08.2001 Officer but she was given the
offer whether she wanted to
Coram: get herself searched before
K.C. Gupta, J. the Inspector or not - There
was a non- compliance of the
provisions of Section 50 of
NDPS Act.
15 Karnail Singh @ Jattu Recovery of 25 kilogram Court allowed the bail Bail
Vs. of poppy husk from the application and held that n Granted.
State of Haryana petitioner. Filed bail view of the submissions
petition under section 439 made by the Petitioner, it was
MANU/PH/1399/2001 of CrPC. held that the Petitioner can
be admitted to bail to the
Decided On: 02.08.2001 satisfaction of the Chief
Judicial Magistrate.
Coram:
Nirmal Singh, J.
16 Balkar Singh Petition filed a bail Court allowed the bail Bail
Vs. application. He was application and held that The granted.
State of Haryana charged for offence authorised officer was
committed under the obliged to inform the
MANU/PH/1416/2001 NDPS Act. Accused of this right to
afford him a proper
Decided On: 09.08.2001 opportunity. Its non-
compliance would affect the
Coram: prosecution case seriously
M.L. Singhal, J. and vitiate the trial. It was
submitted that some times an
officer was not a Magistrate
by virtue of his designation.
He was only vested with the
powers of a Magistrate. He
does not become clothed
with the designation of a
Magistrate to all intents and
purposes. He should be
known to the people that he
was a Magistrate. A Naib
Tehsildar was not viewed by
the people as Magistrate. He
was viewed by them as
Tehsildar. Intention of the
Parliament while using the
word Magistrate in Section
50 of NDPS act was that he
should be a gazetted officer
also.
17 Chinda Singh Offence committed Court allowed the bail Bail
Vs. punishable under section petition and held that granted.
State of Punjab 37 of the NDPS Act. Looking to all the facts and
Petition filed seeking bail. circumstances of the case, I
MANU/PH/1776/2001 think bail should be allowed
to the petitioner. So, bail to
Decided On: 13.08.2001 him to the satisfaction of
Chief Judicial Magistrate.
Coram:
M.L. Singhal, J.
18 Kuldeep @ Kala Petitioner was alleged to Court allowed the bail Bail
Vs. have been found in application to the satisfaction granted.
State of Haryana possession of 15 of Chief Judicial/Duty
Kilograms of poppy husk. Magistrate, Panipat.
MANU/PH/1404/2001 He filed present
application praying for
Decided On: 17.08.2001 bail under section 439 of
CrPC.
Coram:
K.S. Grewal, J.
19 Tehal Singh alias Tehlu Recovery of 25 kilogram Court allowed the bail Bail
Vs. of poppy husk from the application to the satisfaction Granted.
State of Punjab petitioner. He filed this of CJM, Patiala.
application seeking bail
MANU/PH/1400/2001 under section 439 of
CrPC.
Decided On: 20.08.2001
Coram:
Nirmal Singh, J.
20 Sikander Singh Offence committed Court allowed the bail Bail
Vs. punishable under Section application and held that granted.
Respondent: State of 15 of NDPS Act. Keeping in view the facts
Haryana Recovery not effected in and circumstances of the case
presence of Magistrate.. and without commenting on
MANU/PH/1417/2001 Hence this petition the merits of the case, let the
seeking bail under section petitioner be admitted to bail
Decided On: 22.08.2001 439 of CrPC. to the satisfaction of
C.J.M./Duty Magistrate,
Coram: Panipat.
K.C. Gupta, J.
21 Puran Singh Offence committed Court allowed the bail Bail
Vs. punishable under Section application and held that If Granted.
Respondent: State of 18 of the NDPS Act. the suspect requires to be
Haryana Petition filed under searched in the presence of
section 439 of the CrPC. Gazetted Officer or
MANU/PH/1771/2001 Magistrate, he shall be
searched only in that manner.
Decided On: 03.10.2001 In the present case, the
petitioner had given option to
Coram: get himself searched in the
K.C. Gupta, J. presence of Magistrate but he
was not searched in the
presence of Magistrate but
was searched in the presence
of a Gazetted Officer, so, his
search was not proper and
the same is illegal and, thus,
prima facie, according to the
learned counsel, no case was
made out. The case and
without commenting on the
merits of the case, let the
petitioner be admitted to bail
to the satisfaction lower
Court.
22 Amar Chand Offence committed Court allowed the bail Bail
Vs. punishable under Section application and held that granted.
State of Haryana 20 of the NDPS Act. keeping in view the facts and
Petition found in circumstances of the case, let
MANU/PH/1770/2001 possession 500 gms of the petitioner be admitted to
Charas without any bail to the satisfaction of
Decided On: 10.10.2001 permit. Hence present CJ.M. Panipat.
application for bail.
Coram:
K.C. Gupta, J.
23 Brij Lal According to the Court allowed the bail Bail
Vs. prosecution, 30 Kgs of application and held that granted.
State of Haryana poppy husk was Looking to these facts and
recovered from the circumstances of the case, I
MANU/PH/2405/2001 possession of the think bail should be allowed
petitioner on 14.6.2001. to the petitioner. So bail to
Decided On: 06.12.2001 He was charged under the him to the satisfaction of
NDPS Act. Hence filed Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Coram: this application seeking Fatehabad.
M.L. Singhal, J. bail.
24 Bohar Singh Recovery of 50 bags of Court allowed the bail Bail
Vs. Poppy Husk from the application and held that granted.
State of Punjab petitioner. He was Under these circumstances,
charged under Sections even though the quantity of
MANU/PH/0468/2003 15/61/85 of the N.D.P.S contraband allegedly
Act and under Section recovered from the petitioner
Decided On: 04.02.2003 120B of the Indian Penal is very heavy i.e. 50 bags of
Code. Hence this bail poppyhusk, yet this Court
Coram: application under section feels that the petitioner is
Jasbir Singh, J. 439 of the CrPC. entitled to bail. The
petitioner will file a specific
undertaking before the
Courts below that during the
period of his bail, he shall
not indulge himself in any
other criminal activity and he
will behave like a disciplined
citizen. Bail is granted to the
satisfaction of trial Court
against heavy sureties.
25 Shiv Kumar Nagpal Petitioner sought grant of Court allowed the bail Bail
Vs. regular bail in case under application and held that granted.
State of Haryana Sections 409/483/218 of Object of the legislature,
the Indian Penal Code, while enacting the stringent
MANU/PH/0543/2004 1860 (IPC) and Section provisions of Section 37 of
29 of the Narcotics and the NDPS Act, was to
Decided On: 30.08.2004 Psychotropic Substances prevent offenders from being
Act, 1985. granted bail easily - But the
Coram: said intent expressed in
Rajive Bhalla, J. Section 37 of the NDPS Act
could not be construed to
take away the power of Court
to grant bail - "Reasonable
grounds" would vary from
case to case and from one
accused to another -
"Reasonable grounds" to
hold that the Petitioner was
not guilty of the offence
charged - Petitioner, who
was a ballistic expert, had
retired from service -
Petitioner was handicapped,
as he had lost his fingers in a
simulated explosion -
Petitioner was not likely to
commit another offence,
while on bail - Counsel for
the State had not expressed
any apprehension that the
Petitioner would, interfere
with the trial or subvert the
course of justice.
26 Balbir Singh alias Bira Whether the recovery of Court allowed the bail Bail
Vs. 36 kgs of poppy husk application and held that I granted.
State of Punjab from the petitioner am also conscious of the
pursuant to the disclosure embargo contained in
MANU/PH/1480/2005 statement made by him Section 37 of the Act but
on 3.8.2004 would be keeping in view the peculiar
Decided On: 03.03.2005 added to the earlier facts of the case in which
recovery of 38 kgs of there is a gap of one month
Coram: poppy husk allegedly in both the recoveries, the
Virender Singh, J. shown to have been contention raised by
recovered from the Mr.Sidhu as to whether it
petitioner on 17.7.2004. would really fall under the
head 'non-commercial
Petitioner filed this bail quantity' becomes a point for
application. consideration, which at least
entitles the petitioner for the
relief of regular bail.
27 Harjinder Singh @ Jinda The present petition filed Court dismissed the bail Bail
Vs. under Section 439 Code petition and held that In view denied.
State of Punjab of Criminal Procedure is of the aforementioned facts Commerc
for grant of regular bail to and in view of heavy ial
MANU/PH/3979/2010 the Petitioner in case FIR recovery of narcotic quantity
No. 36, dated 12.4.2010, substance from the involved.
Decided On: 08.12.2010 under Section 22 NDPS possession of the Petitioner
Act. accused, satisfaction of this
Coram: Court cannot be recorded that
Ram Chand Gupta, J. there are reasonable grounds
for believing that Petitioner
is not guilty of offence under
the NDPS Act and that he is
not likely to commit any
offence while on bail as
provided under Section 37 of
the NDPS Act.
28 Balwinder Singh @ This is a petition under Court dismissed the bail Bail
Bindar Section 439 Code of application and held that In denied.
Vs. Criminal Procedure view of the commercial Commerc
State of Punjab seeking regular bail in a nature of recovery effected, ial
case registered against the Section 37 of the Act would quantity
MANU/PH/0623/2011 Petitioner under Sections be attracted to the present was
15/25/61/85 of the case. The Petitioner is, thus, involved.
Decided On: 03.03.2011 Narcotic Drugs & not entitled to the concession
Psychotropic Substances of bail.
Coram: Act, 1985 at Police
Rajan Gupta, J. Station Sadar, Patiala,
District Patiala, vide FIR
No. 173 dated 24th
March, 2010.
29 Jaswinder Singh alias This is a petition under Court dismissed the bail Bail
Jassi Section 439 Code of application and held that In denied.
Vs. Criminal Procedure view of the commercial Commerc
State of Punjab seeking regular bail in a quantity of the contraband ial
case registered against the recovered from the quantity
MANU/PH/1405/2011 Petitioner under Sections Petitioner, I am of the was
21, 22, 25, 29/61/85 of considered view that Section involved.
Decided On: 17.03.2011 NDPS Act at Police 37 of the NDPS Act would
Station Basti Bawa Khel, be attracted to the instant
Coram: Jalandhar, vide FIR No. case. Thus, the Petitioner is
Rajan Gupta, J. 42 dated 12th June, 2010. not entitled to the concession
of bail. The petition is hereby
dismissed. It is, however,
directed that the trial court
shall endeavour to conclude
the trial expeditiously.
30 Krishna Shah This is a petition for Court allowed the bail Bail
Vs. regular bail in a case application and held that granted.
State of Punjab registered vide FIR No. After hearing the learned
168 dated 23.6.2010, counsel for the parties and
MANU/PH/3070/2011 under Section 20/61/85 of taking into consideration the
the NDPS Act. facts and circumstances of
Decided On: 18.08.2011 the case but without making
any observations on the
Coram: merit, the present petition is
Rakesh Kumar Jain, J. allowed and the petitioner is
directed to be released on
bail on his furnishing bail
bonds to the satisfaction of
the learned trial Court.
31 Gurinder Singh Applications filed under Court dismissed the all three Bail
Vs. Section 439 of CrPC bail applications and held denied.
State of Punjab seeking bail. Accused that provisions of section 37 Commerc
were charged under the of NDPS Act would attract in ial
MANU/PH/3215/2011 NDPS Act. the matter. quantity
was
Decided On: 29.08.2011 involved.
Coram:
Rakesh Kumar Jain, J.
32 Jagjit Singh @ Jagga The petitioner has applied Court dismissed the bail Bail
Vs. for bail in a case application and held that In denied.
State of Punjab registered vide FIR No. view of the aforesaid Commerc
50 dated 10.3.2011. under discussion, I do not find any ial
MANU/PH/3632/2011 Sections 15/61/ 85 of the merit in the present bail quantity
NDPS Act. application as the recovery is was
Decided On: 21.09.2011 of 120 Kgs. of poppy husk involved.
(commercial quantity) from
Coram: the petitioner at the spot,
Rakesh Kumar Jain, J. therefore, he is not entitled to
bail in terms of Section 37 of
the NDPS Act.
THE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
S. No. Name Of Case Issue Before the Court Decision Of The Court Remark.
1 Angrej Singh Petitioner filed this bail Court dismissed the bail Bail denied.
Vs. application. He was found application and held that The
State of Rajasthan in possession of Narcotic petitioner was asked whether
substances and charged he wanted to go to the
MANU/RH/0265/1992 under the NDPS Act. nearest Gazetted Officer or
Magistrate but he did not so
Decided On: 16.09.1992 desire. The quantity
recovered is excessive On the
Coram: basis of the other pleas at this
Mohini Kapoor, J. stage it is not easy to say that
there are no reasons for
believing him to be not guilty
of any offence. The
circumstances do not permit
the release of the petitioner
on bail.
2 Bhanwarsingh The petitioner was Court dismissed the appeal Bail denied.
Vs. convicted under Section 8 and held that High Court to
The State of Rajasthan read with Section 18 of bear in mind limitations in
the NDPS Act. He filed Section 37 while suspending
MANU/RH/0161/1996 this appeal seeking sentence or enlarging
suspension of the accused on bail.
Decided On: 18.04.1996 sentence.
Coram:
P.C. Jain, J.
3 Daud Ali Petitioner filed this Court dismissed the bail Bail denied.
Vs. second application for his application and held that In
The State of Rajasthan bail Under Section 439, the instant case, if the FSL
Cr.P.C. He was charged report is not received as yet,
MANU/RH/0341/1993 under the various section the trial Court shall make
of NDPS Act. efforts to get the same from
Decided On: 25.11.1993 the Department. Then, the
charge shall be framed, if the
Coram: same is made out, after
N.L. Tibrewal, J. hearing the learned Counsel
for the accused and the trial
court shall expedite the trial
in the case. The trial Court
shall make efforts to
complete the trial within six
months, after the charge/s
is/are framed. A copy of this
order be also sent to the
concerned trial Court.
4 Devki Nandan and Ors. Present bail application Court dismissed the bail Bail denied.
Vs. filed under section 439 of application and held that no
State of Rajasthan and the CrPC. The petitioners reasonable grounds to
Anr. were charged under believe that accused not
Sections 8/19 and 8/29 of guilty made out. Hence the
MANU/RH/0509/1995 the NDPS Act. appeal lacks merit and
dismissed accordingly.
Decided On: 15.01.1995
Coram:
R.R. Yadav, J.
5 Dharam Chand Petitioner filed bail Court allowed the bail Bail granted.
Vs. application under section application and held that
State of Rajasthan 439 of the CrPC. He was Petitioner is aged about 73
a accused of the years and the investigation as
MANU/RH/0375/1995 Cultivation of Bhang also the trial of this case are
without, licence is also likely to take
Decided On: 04.05.1995 punishable under the considerable time. It has also
Rajasthan Excise Act and not been alleged that the
Coram: not under the NDPS Act. petitioner is previous convict
R.P. Saxena, J. Besides this, the I.O. has under the NDPS Act. Hence
not collected any it was fit case to grant bail.
evidence to show that the
petitioner is engaged in
cultivating and selling the
Ganja.
6 Gena Ram Present application filed Court dismissed the bail Bail denied.
Vs. under section 439 of the application and held that the
State of Rajasthan CrPC seeking bail. limitations specified in
Petitioner is charged Section 37(1)(b) of the Act
MANU/RH/0193/1993 under section Sections 8, are fully applicable for an
20 and 37 of the NDPS offence relating to ganja
Decided On: 04.08.1993 Act. which is punishable under
Section 20(b)(i) of the Act.
Coram:
R.P. Saxena, J.
7 Gurumail Singh Petitioner convicted for Court dismissed the bail Bail denied.
Vs. the offence made under application and held that
State Section 8/15 of the NDPS Section 43 of the Narcotic
Act. Drugs Psychotropic
MANU/RH/0211/2005 He filed this bail Substances Act, 1985 makes
application under section provision of power of seizure
Decided On: 17.05.2005 439 of the CrPC on the and arrest in public place as
ground that there was no in this case whereas Section
Coram: violation of the provisions 42 of the Act provides for
Harbans Lal, J. of Section 42(1) of the power of entry, search,
NDPS Act. seizure and arrest without
warrant or authorisation, in
any building, conveyance or
place. Enormous quantity of
contraband article allegedly
recovered from the truck
which wide spread
unwholesome adverse effect
on the health of the society at
large.
8 Gyan Chand Petitioner filed this Court dismissed the petition Bail denied.
Vs. application seeking and held that powers of High
The State of Rajasthan suspension of the Court in suspending sentence
sentence till the pendency during pendency of appeal
MANU/RH/0164/1992 of the appeal against the had not been taken away by
conviction. He was Section 32A of Act but they
Decided On: 27.07.1992 convicted under section had been preserved by
18 of the NDPS Act. Section 36B of Act and High
Coram: Court could exercise its
B.R. Arora, J. powers of suspending
sentence during pendency of
appeal subject to conditions
and limitations mentioned in
Section 37 of Act.
9 Harendra alias Hari Present bail application Court dismissed the bail Bail denied.
Singh filed under Section 439 of application and held that it is
Vs. Cr.PC for grant of bail true that under proviso (a) to
State of Rajasthan with regard to offence Section 167(2) of Cr.PC,
punishable under order for release on bail is
MANU/RH/0188/1993 provision of NDPS Act. order on default and if
investigating agency fails to
Decided On: 05.05.1993 file charge sheet before
expiry of 90/60 days as case
Coram: may be accused in custody
N.K. Jain, J. should be released on bail
but at that stage merits of
case are not to be examined
as it is legislative command
and not court's discretion - It
is also undisputed that for
offence other than Act,
accused is entitled to bail if
90 days period expired,
which begins from date of
order of remand and not from
date of arrest - But at same
time if accused has not made
application for his release on
bail after expiry of period
prescribed by proviso (a) to
Section 167(2) of Cr.PC and
before filing of charge sheet,
he cannot be released solely
on ground that charge sheet
was not submitted within
prescribed period and where
prayer for bail is to be
considered after submission
of charge sheet question of
granting bail does not arise -
Admittedly, Petitioner did
not move for bail after expiry
of period of 90 days and
prior to filing of challan and,
therefore, accused/Petitioner
cannot take advantage of
default on part of
investigating agency.
10 Himmat Singh Present bail application Court dismissed the bail Bail denied.
Vs. filed against order application and held that in
The State of Rajasthan whereby dismissed view of provisions of Section
application for grant of 37 of Act, bail can be granted
MANU/RH/0253/1994 bail by holding that at this to accused if Court satisfied
stage it cannot be said that he is not guilty of such
Decided On: 15.11.1994 that Petitioner was not offence and that he is not
guilty for offence and likely to commit any such
Coram: therefore he cannot be offence while on bail - Ten
B.R. Arora, J. released on bail in view litres of acetic Anhydride
of provisions of Section was recovered on
37 of Act. information supplied and at
instance of Petitioner - This
acetic Anhydride is used for
manufacture of brown sugar -
At this stage from evidence
available on record, it cannot
be said that there were no
reasonable grounds for
believing that Petitioner was
not guilty of offences under
Act - Material which
Petitioner was going to
supply to other persons was
used for manufacture of
brown sugar.
11 Jarin Khan This misc bail application Court dismissed the bail Bail denied.
Vs. under Section 439 Cr.P.C. application and held that n
State of Rajasthan is directed against the accused person cannot be
orders of the learned released on bail on the
MANU/RH/0417/1992 Sessions Judge, ground of Section 167(2)
Pratapgarh whereby they Cr.P.C. without satisfying the
Decided On: 16.10.1992 have declined to issue a conditions of Section 37 of
direction for bail Under the NDPS Act.
Coram: Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. in
N.K. Jain, J. the matter arising out of
F.I.R. No. 7/92 for the
offences Under Section
8/18 and 8/21 of the
NDPS Act.
12 Kamal Raju and Anr. Present petition filed Court allowed the bail Bail granted.
Vs. under section 439 of the application and held that No
State of Rajasthan CrPC seeking bail. evidence collected to show
Petitioner was charged prima facie that petitioners
MANU/RH/0477/1994 under NDPS Act. were involved in trading or
smuggling brown sugar--No
Decided On: 24.08.1994 reasonable ground to believe
that petitioners committed
Coram: offence under Act or is likely
R.P. Saxena, J. to commit such offence in
future.
13 Manjee This was second bail Court allowed the bail Bail granted.
Vs. application. First bail application and held that
State of Rajasthan application was rejected keeping in view, all the facts
on 13.11.95 as not and circumstances of the
MANU/RH/0443/1996 pressed for the reason that present case as also the
challan and F.S.L. report provisions of Section 37 of
Decided On: 27.02.1996 were not available to the the N.D.P.S. Act, I feel that it
accused applicant at that will be just and proper to
Coram: stage. Petitioner was enlarge accused applicant
R.R. Yadav, J. charged under 8/20 of the Manjee son of Shri Hemaji
NDPS Act. on bail provided he furnishes
a personal bond in the sum of
Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten
thousand only) and two
sureties of the like amount, to
the satisfaction of the learned
District and Sessions Judge,
Udaipur empowered to
exercise powers under the
N.D.P.S. Act for his
.personal attendance before
that court on each and every
date of hearing till
completion of trial.
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