Important Bail Judgements

14 Ramdeo and Anr. Petitioner filed present Court allowed the bail Bail granted.

Vs. bail application under application and held that no

State of Rajasthan section 439 of the CrPC. evidence collected to show

Petitioner was charged that petitioner was owner of

MANU/RH/0478/1994 under the NPDS Act. Tea stall or that he purchased

and sold opium through

Decided On: 02.09.1994 coaccused--No reasonable

ground to believe that he

Coram: committed offence under Act

R.P. Saxena, J. or is likely to commit such

offence in future--Held, he

deserves to be enlarged on

bail.

15 Ramesh Chandra Petitioner sought an order Court allowed the bail Bail granted.

Vs. from this Court, directing application and held that

State of Rajasthan his release from Looking to the facts of the

detention, under the present case, it can be said

MANU/RH/0150/2001 provisions of Sec. 439 of that the accused was carrying

the Code of CrPC, as he doda post at the behest of a

Decided On: 06.02.2001 is in custody for being person who had a licence to

suspected of having deal in doda post. It cannot

Coram: committed an offence be said that the accused was

V.G. Palshikar, J. under the NDPS Act. in any manner connected

with the offence for which he

has been detained. I deem it

just and proper to release that

accused on bail.

16 Rashid Khan alias In all the three bail Court dismissed the bail Bail denied.

Rashid and Ors. applications the accused applications and held that I

Vs. persons were arrested fully agree with the aforesaid

The State under Section 8/18 and view taken by the Full Bench

8/19 NDPS Act but of the M.P. High Court. It is,

MANU/RH/0178/1993 Cognizance by the therefore, held that the

Special Judge was taken provisions of Section 37 of

Decided On: 11.01.1993 after 90 days of their NDPS Act override Section

arrest. Now they have 167(2), Cr.P.C., and bail

Coram: filed present bail cannot be granted in cases

N.L. Tibrewal, J. applications under section registered under the Act,

439 of the CrPC. unless conditions contained

in clauses (i) and (ii) of

Section 37(1)(b) are satisfied.

17 Shakil Ahmed Third petition seeking for Court dismissed the petition Bail denied.

Vs. suspension of the and held that Limitations in

State of Raj. impugned sentence. granting of Bail are specified

Petitioner was sentenced in Clause (b) of Sub-section

MANU/RH/0181/2002 under the NDPS Act. (1) of Section 37 of the Act,

which provides that no

Decided On: 05.04.2002 person accused of an offence

punishable for a term of

Coram: imprisonment of five years or

Arun Madan, J. more under the NDPS Act

shall be released on bail or

on his own bail unless the

Court is satisfied that there

are reasonable grounds for

believing that he is not guilty

of such offence. Applying

the principle of law laid

down in [1999 (66) ECC 335

(SC)], there is no merit or

reasonable ground to

suspense the impugned

sentence as provided under

Section 37 of the NDPS Act.

Accordingly this third

application No. 481/2001 is

dismissed.

18 Shaffi Mohammed and Applications for bail Court allowed the bail Bail granted.

Ors. Under Section 439 application and held that

Vs. Criminal Procedure Code, Except Sections 19, 24 and

State of Rajasthan 1973 - Offence Under 27A and offences involving

Section 8/20, 8/20 and commercial quantity under

MANU/RH/0027/2005 8/18 respectively of the the Act of 1985 are

NDPS Act. concerned, it is not necessary

Decided On: 18.03.2005 to take into consideration the

limitation imposed under

Coram: Clause (b) of Sub-section (1)

N.K. Jain, J. of Section 37 to the effect

that Court must be 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 but, those cases are

required to be considered on

the basis of facts and

circumstances of those cases.

The limitation of Section 37

relating to bail has been

relaxed by amendment so far

as case of small and less than

commercial quantity of

contraband is concerned.

after amendment made in

Section 37 of the Act the

limitation or restriction

imposed by Sub-section

(1)(b)(ii) of Section 37

applies only in respect of

offence Under Sections. 19,

24 and 27-A and for offences

involving commercial

quantity and so far as other

offences under the Act are

concerned, the said

restriction/limitation is not

applicable.

19 Sami Ullaha S/o Offence committed Court dismissed the appeal Bail denied.

Mustkin Khan and Anr. punishable under Sections and held that in present case,

Vs. 8/21 and 8/29 of the it was observed that the

Narcotic Central Bureau NDPS Act. Petitioner contraband weighing two

filed this application kilogram Heroin was

MANU/RH/0041/2008 praying for bail. recovered - Trial Court was

fully justified in passing the

Decided On: 19.02.2008 impugned order

Coram:
N.K. Jain, J.

20 Shantilal Petition filed seeking bail. Court allowed the bail Bail granted.

Vs. Petitioner is charged application and held that

State of Rajasthan under Sections 8/20, 27 Under Section 27 of the Act,
and 37 of the NDPS Act such an offence is punishable
MANU/RH/0347/1995 for a period six months only
and, therefor, provisions of
Decided On: 30.03.1995 Section 37 of the Act cannot
be pressed into service in this
Coram: case. The possession of
R.P. Saxena, J. Bhang without licence is not
punishable under the NDPS
Act, but punishable under the
Rajasthan Excise Act.

THE UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT

S. No. Name Of Case Issue Before the Court Decision Of The Court Remark.

1 Nanhey It is a case of recovery of Court allowed the bail Bail Granted.

Vs. 6 kg. of poppy husk from application and held that

State of Uttaranchal the possession of the Considering the quantity of

applicant accused. contraband and facts that no

MANU/UC/0062/2002 Petitioner filed criminal history with the

application for bail. applicant bail granted.

Decided On: 13.11.2002

Coram:

Hon'ble Irshad Hussain,

J.

2 Rajesh Kumar Gupta Present petition filed Court allowed the bail Bail granted.

Vs. seeking bail. Petitioner application and held that this

State of Uttaranchal was charged under Court is of the view that the

Section 8/22 of N.D.P.S. applicant has made out a case

MANU/UC/0194/2005 Act and under Sections for bail. Learned Additional

147, 224, 323, 504, 506, Advocate General relied and

Decided On: 02.12.2005 353, 420 and 427 of referred the case of Collector

Indian Penal Code. of Customs v. Ahamadalieva

Coram: Nodira 2004 SCC 834, and

Prafulla C. Pant, J. argued that the expression

"reasonable grounds"

mentioned in Section 37

means something more than

prima facie grounds. I have

gone through said case law.

In said case accused was

intercepted at airport with the

banned drugs and she was

not a medical practitioner.

3 Smt. Sonia (In Jail) Present application filed Court dismissed the bail Bail denied.

Vs. seeking bail. The application and held that the

State of Uttarakhand prosecution case is that recovered quantity of Ganja

on 30.6.2010 at about 8 is much more than the

MANU/UC/1805/2010 P.M. from the possession commercial quantity

of the present applicant therefore is not a fit case

Decided On: 13.09.2010 and co-accused, 134.800 where the applicant is

kilograms of Ganja was entitled for bail

Coram: said to be recovered.

Hon'ble Dharam Veer, J.

ANALYSIS II LEVEL

S. No. Name of Court No. of Bail No. of Bail No. of Bail
Application cancelled.
Application denied.
6 11
allowed 15 2
1 1
1 Supreme Court 4 8 6
4 1
2 Allahabad High Court 11 - -
12 -
3 Andhra Pradesh High Court 2 4 -
8 -
4 Bombay High Court 9 5 2
1 -
5 Calcutta High Court 1 - -
6 1
6 Chattisgarh High Court 1 - -
5 -
7 Delhi High Court 21 8 2
- -
8 Gawhati High Court - - -
8 2
9 Gujrat High Court 1 3 1
13 -
10 Himachal Pradesh high Court 1 13 -
- -
11 Jammu & Kashmir High Court - - -
1 -
12 Jharkhand High Court -

13 Karnataka High Court 2

14 Kerala High Court 7

15 Madhya Pradesh High Court 13

16 Madras High Court 2

17 Manipur High Court -

18 Meghalaya High Court -

19 Orissa High Court 10

20 Patna High Court 2

21 Punjab & Haryana High Court 19

22 Rajasthan High Court 7

23 Sikkim High Court -

24 Tripura High Court -

25 Uttarakhand High Court 2

Note:

1) The study of the aforesaid cases is based on the judgments/orders of Supreme Court &
various High Courts available on the manupatra.

2) No case with regard to section 37 of NDPS Act has been found in Jharkhand, Manipur,
Meghalaya, Sikkim, Tripura High Court.

APPENDIX

Section 37 of the NDPS Act 1985 is reproduced hereinbelow-

[37. Offences to be cognizable and non-bailable.-(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974)
(a) every offence punishable under this Act shall be cognizable;
(b) no person accused of an offence punishable for 2[ offences under section 19 or section 24 or section 27 A
and also for offences involving commercial quantity] shall be released on bail or on his own bond unless
(i) the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the application for such release, and
(ii) where the Public Prosecutor opposes the application, 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.
(2) The limitations on granting of bail specified in clause (b) of sub-section (1) are in addition to the limitations
under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) or any other law for the time being in force, on granting
of bail.]