release on bail in the and a woman and he
sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- reinforces his plea
with one surety in the with the submission
like amount along with that the conditions in
certain conditions. The the jail are so difficult
Accused could not avail that the health of the
of the bail and Accused is in a
continued to be in precarious condition.
custody, though the These factors,
Court record indicated undoubtedly, do
that there was an order require some
for her release on bail consideration, but the
or rather that the legal difficulty in the
original bail order dated way of Mr. Maniyar
9-6-1987 was still is that they are not
valid. factors which could
override the stringent
provisions of Section
37 of the Narcotic
Drugs and
Psychotropic
Substances Act. On
merits, therefore, I
am unable to accede
to the plea that both
the orders should be
upheld, but it is still
permissible to this
Court, one the special
facts of this case, to
direct the learned
Additional Sessions
Judge before whom
the trial is pending,
particularly since this
is an incident relating
to the year 1987, to
take up the matter for
hearing at the very
earliest and to dispose
of the same, in any
event, within an outer
limit of 3 (three)
months.
9 Dr. Rohit Desai This criminal Court denied the bail Bail denied
Vs. application is filed by to the appellant and Decision of the
The State of the present petitioner held that there are trial court
Maharashtra against the order dated sufficient evidences rejected bail was
15th June, 1992 passed to prove the upheld.
MANU/MH/0125/1992 by the Judge, N.D.P.S. involvement of the
Special Court, (Court accused in the
Decided On: No. 24), Greater offenses under the
03.09.1992 Bombay, in Bail NDPS Act.
Application No. 260 of
Coram: 1992 and Bail
M.L. Dudhat, J. Application No. 254 of
1992 in Remand
Application No. 72 of
1992 (arising out of
Narcotic Cell, K.
Division, C.R. No. 17
of 1992).
By the aforesaid
judgment and order, the
trial Court rejected the
application for bail
preferred by the present
petitioner who is
original accused No. 3.
The only question
which I have to decide
is as to whether the
present petitioner is
entitled for the grant of
bail under Section 37 of
the N.D.P.S. Act of
1985
10 Kuldeepsingh S/o This Criminal Writ Court did not Bail denied.
Kesharsingh Pabla and Petition prays for a interfere in the matter Decision of trial
Ors. declaration that the and held From the court rejecting
Vs. detention of the averments made in bail application
The State of petitioners after expiry the petition and from upheld.
Maharashtra, through of 90 days from the the order dated 8-4-
Police Station Officer date of their arrest is 1993, it is clear that
and Anr. unconstitutional, illegal the petitioners did not
and unauthorised and seek their release on
MANU/MH/0691/1993 further seeks an bail on merits under
appropriate writ order section 37 of the
Decided On: or direction to release N.D.P.S. Act. The
30.06.1993 the petitioners on bail application was
or grant them interim restricted to section
Coram: bail if the situation so 167(2) of Criminal
G.D. Kamat and M.B. justifies. P.C. The petitioners
Ghodeswar, JJ. are at liberty to move
the Special Court for
First petitioner, it their release on merits
appears, helps his under section 37 of
relative Kulvindersingh N.D.P.S. Act, if so
in carrying on a advised.
business of hotel
(Dhaba). Petitioners 2,
3 and 4 are the
employees at the said
Dhaba. Karanja
(Ghadge) Police Station
in Crime No. 219/92
arrested all the
petitioners on 25-12-
1992 for being involved
in offences under
sections 17 and 21 of
the Narcotic Drugs &
Psychotropic
Substances Act, 1985
(for short, NDPS Act).
They are also said to
have committed an
offence under section
66(i)(b) of the Bombay
Prohibition Act. The
story of the matter is
that Karanja Police are
said to have found 400
gms. of opium from
outside the premises of
Dhaba and a few bottles
of country liquor.
No charge sheet was
filed until an
application for release
on bail was filed on 3-
4-1993 purported to be
under proviso (a) to
sub-section (2) of
section 167 of Cr.P.C.
11 Fakira Ramdas This is an application Court allowed the Bail granted.
Chaudhary for bail pending the bail application and
Vs. hearing and final held In the instant
State of Maharashtra disposal of an appeal case, the accused No.
filed by the State 5, as also the others,
MANU/MH/0113/1994 seeking to impugn an have been acquitted.
order of acquittal Hence, the
Decided On: passed for offences presumption of
13.01.1994 punishable under Ss. 21 innocence has been
and 29 of the Narcotic further fortified by an
Coram: Drugs and Psychotropic order of acquittal
A.C. Agarwal and I.G. Substances Act, 1985. passed by the trial
Shah, JJ. At the trial five accused Court. It is true that
were prosecuted and by this Court has
judgment and order admitted an appeal
passed on the 8th of filed against the order
April, 1993 the learned of acquittal. The only
Additional Sessions question which,
Judge, Malgaon deserves to be
acquitted all the examined is, whether
accused. Being the accused will be
aggrieved by the made available to
aforesaid order of suffer the sentence in
acquittal, the State has the event of the order
preferred the instant of acquittal being set
appeal. By an order aside and order of
passed on the 4th of conviction being
October, 1993 the imposed upon the
aforesaid appeal was accused. The further
admitted and action question which
under S. 390 of the requires to be
Code of Criminal considered is whether
Procedure as ordered. the accused is likely
Accordingly, warrants to commit further
of arrest of the accused offences while on
were issued and bail. Shri Lambay,
accused No. 5 was the learned Public
taken in custody by the Prosecutor, on taking
trial Court. The accused instructions, has
No. 5, thereafter, stated before us, that
preferred an application there are no
for bail. By an order antecedents against
passed on the 17th of the present accused.
December, 1993 the Having regard to all
learned Additional the facts and
Sessions Judge was circumstances of the
pleased to reject the case, we find that the
application for bail. present accused is
According to the entitled to be
learned Judge, only enlarged on bail
accused No. 5 has been pending the hearing
arrested after the issue and final disposal of
of warrants whereas the the appeal. In order to
other accused are ensure that he is made
reported absconding. available to face
He has further noted imprisonment in the
that during the event of the appeal
pendency of the trial all being allowed and
the accused, including that he does not
accused No. 5, were indulge in offences
under-trial prisoners while on bail, we are
and they were denied inclined to impose
bail under the certain conditions,
provisions of S. 37 of which are as follows :
the Act. After the order
of acquittal was passed, The petitioner be
the State has preferred released on bail in a
as appeal. The High sum of Rs. 5,000/-
Court has admitted the with one or two
appeal which sureties to make up
necessarily means that, the like amount. On
according to the High release, he shall
Court, ex-facie, the report at the City
acquittal is improper. Police Station, Dhule
The Court has further once in fortnight for a
proceeded to hold that period of six months
the provisions of S. and, thereafter, once
390, Criminal in a month, till the
Procedure Code do not disposal of the
apply to offences appeal.
punishable under the
Act. S. 37 is a special
provision in the Act
which governs the bail
and hence the general
provisions of S. 390,
Criminal Procedure
Code cannot be
resorted to. The
accused No. 5 has,
thereafter, preferred the
present application for
bail.
12 Chhotu S/o Sk. Roshan This is an application Court granted the bail Bail granted.
Vs. for grant of bail. The to the appellant and Decision of the
State of Maharashtra accused/applicant is held that lower courts
facing a prosecution for requirements of rejected bail was
MANU/MH/0106/1994 an offence under section 41, 42 & 50 set-aside.
Section 20(b)(i) of the have been thrown to
Narcotic Drugs and winds in this case.
Decided On: Psychotropic
29.07.1994 Substances Act, 1985
(hereinafter referred to
Decided On: as "the Act").
01.08.1994
Coram:
V.S. Sirpurkar, J.
13 Bakul N. Shah The petitioner is one of Court rejected the Bail denied.
Vs. the accused in the bail application and Decision of the
The State of offence registered held This Court in the special judge
Maharashtra, N.C.P. under the provisions of circumstances is rejecting bail
and Ans Narcotic Drugs & compelled to take application
Psychotropic notice of the situation upheld.
MANU/MH/0670/1994 Substances Act in as obtained in this
NDPS Case No. 33 of case and having so
Decided On: 1993 pending on the noted, thinks it proper
15.09.1994 file of the Special to issue directions to
Judge, Grater Bombay. the Government of
Coram: My brother Judge Shah this State who shall
M.S. Rane, J. by his order dated 22-2- take immediate steps
1994 in Criminal to ensure prompt and
Application No. 446 regular production
made by the present and movements of the
petitioner seeking his undertrials before the
release on bail has Court to face trial
directed the Special whenever required by
Judge to hear and the concerned courts.
dispose of the said case The Court also makes
expeditiously within a it clear that failure to
period of six months do so would compel
from the date of his the Court to view
order and after passing such lapses or
of such order the inactions as hindrance
request for bail was not and interference with
granted. the judicial process
warranting stern
actions against those
responsible for such
lapses or failures.
Concerned authorities
of the State will do
well to realise such
grim situation. Large
number of undertrials
are languishing in
prisons awaiting their
turn for judicial trial,
who cannot be so
detained for indefinite
period. Courts cannot
proceed with the
trials if the accused
are not produced
before them. Such
non-production also
causes sheer waste of
judicial time, which is
precious one.
14 The Intelligence The petitioner herein is Court allowed the Bail Cancelled.
Officer, Narcotics an Intelligence Officer petition and denied Decision of the
Control Bureau in Narcotic Control the bail to the lower court
Vs. Bureau working under respondent and held granting bail to
Mr. Naushad Ali Abdul the provisions of the Court while the respondent
Aziz Master @ Firoz Narcotic Drugs & exercising power set-aside.
Karim Merchant and Psychotropic either under section
Anr. Substances Act, 437 or 439 of
(hereinafter referred to Criminal Procedure
MANU/MH/0609/1995 as the said NDPS Act Code shall do so
for brevity sake). subject to the
Decided On: Respondent No. 1 is limitation contained
27.01.1995 one of the accused in a in the amended
case being NDPS section 37 of the
Coram: Special Case No. 284 NDPS Act and the
M.S. Rane, J. of 1992 on the file of restrictions placed on
Special Judge, Greater the powers of the
Bombay for the various Court under the said
offences registered section cannot be
under the provisions of ignored at the interim
the said NDPS Act, stage of bail for the
Customs Act and reasons or on the
Indian Penal Code. grounds as sought to
be made out in the
case in hand.
15 Mohd. Ismail and etc. A question that has Court refused to Bail denied.
Vs. been posed is as to suspend the sentence Application for
State of Maharashtra whether the High served upon the bail during
and Anr. Court, while petitioner and held A pendency of
entertaining an appeal reference to Section appeal and for
MANU/MH/0778/1997 against the conviction 37 of the NDPS Act suspension of
under the NDPS Act reveals that remedy sentence
Decided On: has the same power of bail was intended dismissed -
17.07.1997 available to it under to be made more Further, Petition
Section 389, Cr. P.C. to stringent. Section 37 praying for for
Coram: allow suspension of a of the Act also starts grant of
M.B. Ghodeswar and sentence during the with a non-obstante furlough also
S.P. Kulkarni, JJ. pendency of such clause stating that dismissed.
appeal and to release irrespective of
the appellant/accused whatever that has
on bail. As a further been provided under
corollary of this main the Code of Criminal
issue, we have been Procedure, no person
required to record our accused of an offence
observations as to on punishable with
what occasions power imprisonment of five
of suspending sentence years or more shall be
awarded under that Act released on bail
would be available to unless certain
the Appellate Court viz. conditions are
the High Court. fulfilled before the
Court. The first such
condition is that a
Public Prosecutor is
to be given an
opportunity to oppose
and where he
opposes, the Court is
to be further satisfied
before releasing a
person on bail, that
there existed
reasonable grounds
for believing that
such person is not
guilty of the offences.
It is with this higher
standard, that prima
facie, there should be
a telling circumstance
which must exist, to
satisfy the Court that
the accused must not
be guilty of an
offence before he is
considered eligible
for bail. The next
feature of Section 37
seems to be that the
Court is also to be
satisfied that during
the period of his
release on bail, he is
not likely to commit
any offence. All this,
which is said in Sub-
section 1 of Section
37, is further sought
to be clarified by
introducing Sub-
section (2) to that
Section. Sub-section
2 provides that the
limitations on the
power to grant bail,
are in addition to the
limitations mentioned
under the Code or
'any other law on the
subject of granting
bail.
Convict under
Section 21 of the
NDPS Act was not
entitled to suspension
in view of Section 32-
A of the Act read
with Section 389 of
Cr.P.C.
16 Intelligence Officer, This Revision The learned Judge Bail cancelled.
D.R.I., Mumbai Application is filed has also not Decision of the
Vs. under section 482 considered section 35 special judge
Holia Mohammed Cr.P.C. by the of the N.D.P.S. Act granting bail to
Nisar C/o Suleman Intelligence Officer of which shifts the onus the respondent
Holia & others Directorate of Revenue of proof on the was set-aside.
Intelligence in N.D.P.S. accused to prove that
MANU/MH/0663/1998 Spl. Case No. 221 of inspite of the
1997 pertaining to Bail aforesaid
Decided On: Application No. 148 of circumstances, he is
24.10.1997 1997, for quashing and not guilty, as the
setting aside the order presumption is
Coram: granting bail to against him as per the
A.B. Palkar, J. respondent No. 1/Org. said provision.
Accused Holia
Mohammed Nisar in In the result, the
the aforesaid N.D.P.S. application succeeds
Spl. case and for further and the order passed
direction for taking him by the learned Special
in custody as after the Judge in N.D.P.S.
impugned order, he has Case No. 221 of 1997
been released on bail. directing release of
respondent No. 1 on
Issue before the Court bail of Rs. 50,000/-,
was whether the dated 26-6-1997 in
learned single judge did Bail Application No.
not look into the 148 of 1997 is hereby
requirements of section quashed and set aside.
37 of NDPS Act while
granting the bail to the
respondent.
17 M.D. Kale The case debated on It was held that the Bail Cancelled.
Vs. whether the High Court revision might not be Decision of the
Intelligence Officer, had the power to cancel competent against trail court
N.C.B. Bombay the bail- The grant of interlocutory order - granting bail
bail was challenged on However the High was set-aside by
MANU/MH/0394/1999 the ground that bail Court's powers to the High Court.
could not be granted on prevent abuse of
Decided On: a personal bond in a process are not
03.04.1998 serious case under the affected by the same
NDPS Act, 1985.
Coram: It was held that the
S.S. Nijjar, J. The case debated on non-compliance with
whether the Court the provisions of the
could hold the mini trial Act could be
to decide on the nature examined at the trial
of the statement and stage but the Court
compliance of the could have
provisions under considered the fact
Section 42 of the that accused had
Narcotics Drugs and made a confessional
Psychotropic statement under
Substances Act, 1985 in Section 67 of the Act,
a case of grant of bail even if it was
on personal bond – retracted later - Thus
the Court could not
hold the mini trial
It was held that the
fact, whether the
statement was
voluntary or not,
could be decided only
after recording the
evidence in the trial -
Thus the session
judge had erred in
granting the bail
without recording
sound reasons in
terms of Section
37(1)(b) of the Act
18 Smt. Shakuntala Whether, provisions of It was held that a Bail denied.
Bhagwat Section 37(1)(b) of Act plain reading of Decision of
Vs. would be applicable Section 37 made it rejecting the bail
State of Maharashtra with regard to grant of clear that there was by the lower
MANU/MH/1360/1998 bail in respect of not at all any court affirmed.
offence alleged to have occasion or necessity It was held that
Decided On: been committed under to imply that this "Courts shall
06.05.1998 Section 20(b)(i) of Act Section could be consider
– applied for an offence intention of
Coram: punishable for a legislature while
M.B. Shah, C.J. and Additional Sessions minimum term of interpreting a
A.Y. Sakhare, J. Judge, by his order imprisonment of five statute."
rejected bail years - Thus, as
Application filed by prosecution launched
Petitioner - Hence, this case against
Application Petitioner was under
Section 20(b)(i) of
Act, therefore
provisions of Section
37(1)(b) of Act would
be applicable -
Consequently,
Petitioner would not
be entitled for bail as
there was sufficient
material on record to
indicate that she was
guilty of an offence
punishable under
Section 20(b)(i) of
Act - Hence,
Petitioner's bail
application deserved
to be rejected.
19 Raju @ Mohd. Hussain This is an application Court held that The Bail granted.
s/o Ahmad Ali made by the accused in offence is punishable
Vs. Crime No. 6027 of with Rigorous
State of Maharashtra 2002 registered by the Imprisonment for a
Crime Branch, Nagpur term which may
MANU/MH/0553/2002 City, Nagpur. The extend to ten years. It
alleged offence is under is not punishable for
Decided On: Section 20 of the life imprisonment. In
05.08.2002 N.D.P.S. Act. The the circumstances, I
allegation is that 2 kgs. am inclined to grant
Coram: of Ganja was found in bail to the applicant
R.S. Mohite, J. the house in the on the P.R. Bond of
occupation of the Rs. 25,000/- with one
present applicant. The surety of like amount,
quantity of Ganja found subject to the
is below the condition that the
commercial quantity, applicant will report
which is 20 kgs. in the to the Investigating
case of Ganja. The Officer, Crime
provisions of Section Branch, Nagpur,
37(1)(b) of the every fortnight till the
N.D.P.S. Act, are, conclusion of his
therefore, not attracted. trial.
20 Rafael Palafox Garcia The applicant is Court held that Bail granted.
Vs. seeking bail in NDPS Concept of Court set-aside
The Union of India and Special Case No. 6 of commercial quantity the decision of
Anr. 2008 of NCB pending is applicable only to the special judge
before the Special narcotic drugs and rejecting the
MANU/MH/0890/2008 Judge for NDPS cases, psychotropic bail.
Thane. The said case is substances and not to
Decided On: under Section 29 r/w. controlled substances. For being in
25.09.2008 9A and 25A of the Concept of possession of
Narcotic Drugs and commercial quantity controlled
Coram: Psychotropic does not apply to substance, rigors
V.K. Tahilramani, J. Substances Act, 1985. controlled substance of Section 37 of
in view of the NDPS Act
provisions relating to would not be
commercial quantity attracted and
specially Section bail can be
2(viia) and Section granted.
2(viid) of the Act and
the notification issued
by the Government
specifying the small
quantities and
commercial quantities
also shows that this
concept is peculiar to
Narcotic Drugs and
Psychotropic
Substances
21 Stefan Mueller, Accused charged with It was held Offences Bail granted.
(German Citizen) offences under NDPS under Section Impugned order
Bearing Passport Act moved Application 20(b)(ii)(A) and of the special
Vs. for grant of bail. The Section 27 of NDPS judge putting
State of Maharashtra special judge put Act are not offences conditions with
through Senior certain condition with mentioned under bail was set-
Inspector of Police the grant of bail and the Section 37 of NDPS aside.
same have been Act and therefore,
MANU/MH/0600/2010 challenged in this conditions or
Court. limitations put in
Decided On: Section 37(1)(b) are
23.06.2010 not applicable to
them. Further, they
Coram: are bailable offences
J.H. Bhatia, J. under Cr.PC also and
therefore, no
conditions can be
imposed while
granting bail except
about appearance
before a Court at a
particular place or on
a particular date.
22 Union of India (UOI) These two applications Held, in the present Bail Cancelled.
Vs. were filed by the case, huge quantity of Court set-aside
Ravindran Krarapaya petitioner for the 7 kg. the order of the
@ Ravi and Ors. cancellation of bail Methamphetamine special judge
granted to the was recovered from granting bail to
MANU/MH/1783/2010 respondents by the flat which was, prima the accused.
special judge. facie, in possession of
Decided On: accused persons - It
19.11.2010 Prosecution has was not case of
challenged the grant of accused that they had
Coram: bail by the Special any license, permit or
J.H. Bhatia, J. Judge on the ground authorisation either to
that the manufacture or
Methamphetamine is a possess or store said
psychotropic substance psychotropic
as defined in Section substance -
2(xxiii) as it is shown at Therefore, none of
Serial No. 19 in the authorities or Rules
Schedule under Clause comes to support of
(xxiii) of Section 2 of accused
the NDPS Act.
23 Union of India Union of India had Court held that In the Bail Cancelled.
Through Inspector of preferred present present case, offence Decision of the
Customs application for pertains to the special judge
Vs. cancellation of bail possession and granting bail to
Ambalal Srilalji Ahir granted to Respondent transportation of accused was set-
nos.1 and 2 - Whether 14.500 kg of opium, aside.
MANU/MH/1640/2011 order granting bail was which is the
valid - commercial quantity
Decided On: and is punishable
12.12.2011 under Section 17(c)
with rigorous
Coram: imprisonment which
J.H. Bhatia, J. shall not be less than
10 years but which
may extend to 20
years and also with
fine which shall not
be less than one lakh
but which may extend
to 2 lakh rupees. The
offence is non-
bailable. Section
37(1)(b) NDPS Act
provides that no
person accused of an
offence punishable
for 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
the Public Prosecutor
has been given an
opportunity to oppose
the application for
such release and
where the application
is opposed, unless the
Court is satisfied that
(a) there are
reasonable grounds
for believing that he
is not guilty of such
offence and (b) he is
not likely to commit
offence while on bail.
Taking into
consideration the
facts and
circumstances of the
case, I do not find any
ground to believe that
accused are not guilty
of the offence nor it
can be held that they
are not likely to
commit such offence
if granted bail. These
are the stringent
conditions in respect
of grant of bail in
respect of commercial
quantity of the
narcotic drugs or
psychotropic
substance. The trial
Court granted the bail
holding that it was
not commercial
quantity of opium
because the morphine
contained in the total
substance was 1537
gm. The trial Court
committed serious
error in equating
quantity of morphine
with the quantity of
opium and then gave
go bye to the
stringent provisions
of section 37 of the
NDPS Act.
Therefore, it is clear
that in the present
case, bail could not
have been granted
under the law and
hence, the order
passed by the trial
Court granting bail is
per-se illegal and
against the spirit of
law, which seeks to
prevent the offences
relating to narcotic
drugs or psychotropic
substance. Taking
into consideration the
nature and gravity of
the offence, severity
of punishment, the
specific provisions
prohibiting granting
of bail, in view of the
law laid down in Anil
Kumar and Puran Vs
Rambilas this Court
can certainly interfere
in the order of bail
passed by the Special
Judge.
THE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
S. Name of the Case Issue before the Decision of the Remarks.
No. Court High Court
1 Mabia Bibi and Ors. Petitioner filed Bail application Bail denied.
Vs. bail application was rejected by
State of West Bengal before the Court. the Court and it
The petitioners was held that
MANU/WB/0302/1991 were accused NDPS Act being a
under the various special enactment
Decided On: 11.04.1991 provisions of and having been
Coram: NDPS Act. enacted with a
view to making
M.G. Mukerjee and G.R. stringent
Bhattacharjee, JJ. provisions for the
control and
regulation of
operation relating
to Narcotic Drugs
and Psychotropic
Substances, and
the provision of
Section 37 being
in negative terms
limiting the scope
of the
applicability of
the provisions of
Cr. P. C.
regarding bail, it
cannot be said
that the High
Court's powers to
grant bail Under
Section 439 Cr. P.
C, are not subject
to the limitation
mentioned Under
Section 37 of the
Narcotic Drugs
and Psychotropic
Substances, Act,
1985. The non-
obstante clause
with which the
section starts
should be given
its due meaning
and clearly it is
intended to
restrict the powers
to grant bail., and
in case of any
inconsistency
between Section
439 Cr. P. C. and
Section 37 of
NDPS Act,
Section 37
prevails. The
provisions of
Section 4 Cr. P.
C. also make it
clear that when
there is a special
enactment in
force relating to
the manner of
investigation,
enquiry or
otherwise dealing
with such
offences, the other
powers under the
Code of Criminal
Procedure should
be subject to such
special enactment.
In interpreting the
scope of such a
statute the
dominant purpose
underlying the
statute has to be
borne in mind.
2 In Re: Smt. B. Ramannamma The only question Court granted the Bail Granted
involved in this bail and held that Conditional bail.
MANU/WB/0191/1993 case is whether there are
bail can be reasonable
Decided On: 23.02.1993 granted in view of grounds for belief
the specific on the basis of the
Coram: provisions of documents and
S.K. Sen and A.K. Section 37 of the records produced
Bhattacharya, JJ. NDPS Act. before us that the
petitioner may not
be found to be
guilty of the
offence charged at
the trial.
However, this
opinion is not
final and it will be
open to the trial
Court to proceed
in accordance
with the law and
take evidence and
come to a
decision on the
basis of the
evidence that may
be adduced by
both the
prosecution and
the accused. We
are accordingly of
the opinion that
the petitioner
should be released
on bail.
3 Md. Farid Ali By an order dt. Bail applications Bail denied.
Vs. 22.4.1993 the were rejected.
State and Union of India learned Judge in
Charge, Special
MANU/WB/0548/1993 Court, Alipore has
rejected the
Decided On: 18.10.1993 petitioner Md.
Farid Ali's
Coram: application for
S.P. Rajkhowa and R.N. bail in N.C.B.F.
No.
Bhattacharya, J. 104/N.C.B/Cal/92
dt. 25.8.1992
under section 21
of the Narcotic
Drugs and
Psychotropic
Substances Act,
1985. Hence the
petitioner has
filed this
application under
section 439 of the
Code of Criminal
Procedure. 1973
for bail.
By the Judgment
and order dt. 15th
June 1993 the
learned
Additional
Sessions Judge.
9th Court, Alipore
in case No. S.T. 4
91) 93 convicted
the petitioner -
appellant Lalit
Halder under
Section 21 of the
N.D.P.S. Act and
sentenced him to
suffer rigorous
imprisonment for
10 years and to
pay a fine of Rs. 1
lakh, in default to
suffer rigorous
imprisonment for
a period of 5
years.
4 In Re: Dipak Jain The Petitioner Court rejected the Bail denied in
arrested in bail application view of section 37
MANU/WB/0410/1996 connection with a and held that of NDPS Act.
Decided On: 25.07.1996 case of taking Circle Inspector
delivery of brown present at the time
sugar from other of search was
Coram: two persons on himself a gazetted
N.A. Chowdhury and D.P. the basis of an officer and as
information such there was no
Sircar, JJ. recorded under requirement of
G.D. Entry with bringing any other
Chanchal P.S. gazetted officer at
case. the time of search
and seizure. The
According to provision
G.D. Entry of implicitly made it
P.S., Sub- obligatory on the
Inspector of authorised officer
Police to inform the
accompanied by person to be
Officer-in-Charge searched of his
de facto right.
complainant
under supervision Though the search
of Circle may be illegal but
Inspector with the evidence
two private collected, that is
persons for Panchnama etc.,
bearing witness nonetheless would
reached Chanchal be admissible at
bus stand to arrest the trial.
the persons
named by the That even if
sources of Section 50 of
information. Narcotic Drugs
and Psychotropic
As soon as private Substances Act,
car stopped there, 1985 was not
came from complied with it
Maldah side to would be an
Chanchal bus illegality to
stand, the accused discharge the
and another accused Petitioner
person were on that ground,
taking delivery of and, that the trial
two polythene must take a
packets normal course and
containing brown the accused
sugar. On seeing person must face
the above trial.
supervising
persons tried to
conceal those
packets. They
having not any
valid paper
produced above
packets to de
facto
complainant.
Seizing the same,
maintaining
required
formalities,
arrested related
persons including
Petitioner.
5 Smt. Bhola Debi Saroj alias The appellant Court rejected the Bail denied.
Bhulia prays for bail bail and held even
Vs. pending disposal if Section 32A
State of the appeal NDPS Act had
preferred by her not been there in
MANU/WB/0317/1998 against the the statute-Book,
conviction and yet it would not
Decided On: 20.08.1998 sentence awarded be a fit case to
by the trial Court. enlarge the
Coram: The trial Court appellant on bail
G.R. Bhattacharjee and Sujit has by its order dt. now in view of
26-2-97, the stringent
Barman Roy, JJ. sentenced the provisions of
appellant to Section 37, NDPS
rigorous Act and the prima
imprisonment for facie evidence
ten years and also leading to the
to a fine of Rs. conviction of the
1,00,000/~, in appellant under
default to R.I. for Section 21, NDPS
two years more Act whatever may
for her conviction be the outcome of
under Section 21 the appeal on
of the Narcotic merits after
Drugs and threadbare
Psychotropic consideration
Substances Act, which remains
1985. The learned reserved to be
Additional Public done at the time
Prosecutor of hearing the
however submits appeal. According
inter alia that in the prayer for bail
view of Section is rejected.
32A of the NDPS
Act the sentence
imposed upon the
appellant cannot
be suspended and
therefore she
cannot be
enlarged on bail
now. This
proposition is
however opposed
by the learned
Advocate for the
appellant.
6 Assistant Director, Narcotic In this application Court allowed the Bail cancelled.
Control Bureau, Eastern Zonal the bail granted petition and held Decision of the
Unit by the learned that since the special court
Vs. Judge (Special amount involved granted bail set-
Md. Safikul Islam Court) in NDPS was below the aside.
Case No. 30/06 commercial
MANU/WB/0611/2007 by his order No. 5 quantity, the Bail stood
Decided On: 18.09.2007 dated 17.10.2006 rejected.
has been sought to rigors of Section
be cancelled.
37 would not
apply in this case.
Coram: That way there
Amit Talukdar and S.P. Mitra, cannot be any
dispute and as
JJ. also rightly shown
by Shri Bagchi,
the order passed
by the learned
Judge (Special
Court) cannot be
said to be an
illegal order to
that extent.
However,
notwithstanding
the said position
we do not see eye
to eye with regard
to the finding of
the learned Judge
(Special Court)
that "Investigation
has proceeded lot"
and apart from
any other aspect
of the matter
could have
thought of
enlarging the
accused on bail in
spite of the
backdrop of the
offence alleged
against him in
view of the
materials we find
before us which
has been
produced on
behalf of the
Union of India.
It appears that in
the meantime the
petition of
complaint has
already been filed
before the learned
Trial Court on
27.11.2006 on
behalf of the
Union of India.
The accused was
arrested only on
30.8.2006 and on
17.10.2006 the
stage when he
was granted bail
by the learned
Trial Court, in our
view, was
absolutely in
appropriate.
THE CHATTISGARH HIGH COURT
S. Name of the Case Issue before the Decision of the Remarks.
No. Court High Court
1 Chandan Sharma Applicant's sought Bail application Bail granted as
Vs. for released on bail allowed since the quantity of
State of Chhattisgarh on ground that offence under drugs found
maximum sentence NDPS Act was was small.
MANU/CG/0438/2011 for being found in cognizable and
possession of non-bailable
Decided On: 09.12.2011 psychotropic under Section 37
substance up to
Coram: small quantity was 6 of Act, third part
Hon'ble Mr. Prashant Kumar months and they
were in jail since last of classification
Mishra, J. about 3 months or
dealing with
offence under
other laws
more - Hence, this carrying
Application - punishment with
Whether offences imprisonment for
under Act carrying less than 3 years
punishment up to and where offence
three years would was non-
still he cognizable cognizable and
by Special Court or bailable was not
by any other Court. attracted
THE DELHI HIGH COURT
S. Name Of The Case Issue Before The Court Decision Of The High Remark.
No. Court
1 Anil Kumar Gandhi The case dealt with an Court rejected the bail Bail denied.
Vs. application under Section application. However court
Narcotic Control Bureau 439 of the Criminal held that It appears that
and Ors. Procedure Code, 1973, for nothing substantial has
grant of bail to the accused been done and the number
MANU/DE/0878/1991 on the ground of delay in of the Additional Sessions
trial of the applicant - The Judges had rather gone
Decided On: 27.05.1991 applicant was accused under down while the number of
Section 21, 23, 29 of the session cases with accused
Coram: Narcotic Drugs and in custody has increased to
V.B. Bansal, J. Psychotropic Substances, a large number after the
1985 - The delay in amendment of Sec. 37 of
prosecution was due to the Act.
inadequacy of number of
judicial officers to deal with
such cases -
2 Gurbux Bhiryani The case debated on whether Court rejected the bail Bail denied.
Vs. the delay in trial of the application and held that
J.K. Handa accused attracted principles By that time the concept
contained in Article 21 of the was that the High Court
MANU/DE/0882/1991 Constitution of India - In the under Section 439 of the
instant case, the accused was Code of Criminal
Decided On: 05.08.1991 facing trial under Section 21 Procedure had the power to
and 29 of the Narcotics grant bail inspire of the
Coram: Drugs and Psychotropic rigour of Section 37 of the
R.L. Gupta, J. Substance Act - There was Act. This was the view of a
delay in trial despite of the Division Bench of this
directions by the High Court Court which was reversed
The delay was not in any by the Supreme Court in
way related to prosecution the case of Kishan Lal
(Supra). Moreover another
fact which weighed with
this Court at the time of
grant of bail to Jasbir Singh
was that the other co-
accused except Sukhdev
Singh were on bail. They
were actually on interim
bail and not on regular bail.
Therefore, the scenario
having changed after the
case of Kishan Lal, and
further in view of the fact
that there is no violation of
the protection available to
the petitioners under Article
21 of the Constitution in the
present case, the petitioners
are not entitled to the grant
of bail. In fact, it is
doubtful whether such co-
accused who are enjoying
bail now, are entitled to so
remain after the decision in
Kishan Lal's case.
3 Babu Khan In this case, 8 kgs. of poppy Court granted the bail and Bail
Vs. straw was seized. Notice held that on account of application
State (Delhi under Section 50 was duly noncompliance with the allowed.
Administration) given veracity whereof is provisions of Section 50,
disputed by amices Curiae. NDPS Act, bar of Section
MANU/DE/0709/1997 The only question which the 37 would not be attracted in
petitioner has pressed before this case.
Decided On: 22.05.1997 me is that before taking
search of the accused, the
Coram: raiding party officials did not
J.K. Mehra, J. offer themselves to be
searched by the accused to
eliminate the possibility of
any narcotic being planted.
This is a very important
safeguard which was
enunciated by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of
State of Bihar v. Kapil Singh,
reported as Air 1969 Sc 58.
4 Amarpal Singh and Two bail applications, one by Court rejected the bail Bail denied.
Others Amarpal Singh and the other application and held that
Vs. by Ved Prakash Manchanda offence under Sections 21
Narcotics Control who are being prosecuted for readwith Section 29 of the
Bureau offence under Sections 21 Act. Section 37 of that Act
read with Section 29 of the mandates that a person
MANU/DE/0535/2000 Narcotic Drugs & accused of such an offence
Psychotropic Substances Act. is not entitled to bail unless
Decided On: 13.08.1998 1985 "the court is satisfied that
there are reasonable
Coram: grounds for believing that
J.B. Goel, J. he is not guilty of such
offence and that he is not
likely to commit any
offence while on bail". In
view of the facts and the
circumstances and the
material on record it is not
possible to come to such
conclusion at this stage.
5 Dhammo The petitioner is facing trial Court granted the bail to the Bail
Vs. for an offence under Section petitioner and held that it is application
State 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and seen that the public witness allowed.
Psychotropic Substances Act, has not supported the
MANU/DE/1173/1998 1985, (for short the Act). The prosecution case which
prosecution case in brief is may create doubts in the
Decided On: 11.09.1998 that Insp. B.S. Ahelawat of case. And thus it is a for
Operation Cell (South West case to grant bail.
Coram: Distt), New Delhi had
J.B. Goel, J. received secret information
on 19.12.1996 at about 7.00
a.m. that the accused-
applicant was selling Smack
in front of her house. On the
basis of this information, a
raiding party was arranged.
Lady Const. Urmila Devi and
one public witness Prem
Singh besides other police
officials were joined. Option
was given under Section 50
of the Act. ACP of the same
Cell was called and in the
search made in his presence;
51 pudias containing 40 gms.
of Smack was recovered
from the possession of the
accused.
6 Islamuddin @ Chottey This is a petition filed under Court rejected the bail Bail denied.
Vs. Section 439 of the Code of application and held that
State of Delhi Criminal Procedure red with courts are bound by the
Section 37 of the NDPS Act provisions of section 37 of
MANU/DE/0619/1999 1985 (for short 'the NDPS NDPS Act.
Act') for interim bail for a
Decided On: 16.08.1999 period of two months. The
petitioner is the accused in
Coram: FIR No.17/98 registered at
Cyriac Joseph, J. Police Station, Narcotic
Branch, Kamla Nagar, Delhi
under Sections 21/61/85 of
the NDPS Act. The case
against the petitioner is at the
trial stage. The petitioner had
earlier filed an application
for regular bail but it was
dismissed by this Court on
20th May, 1999 holding that
it was not possible to say that
this Court was satisfied that
there were reasonable
grounds for believing that the
petitioner was not guilty of
the offences under Section 21
of the NDPS Act or that he
was not likely to commit any
offence while on bail. While
dismissing the petitioner's
application for bail this Court
had pointed out that the
petitioner was involved in as
many as 21 other cases under
the Excise Act, the NDPS
Act, the Arms Act and the
Gambling Act. It was also
pointed out that the petitioner
was a Bad Character (B.C.)
of Police Station Chandni
Mahal.
7 Sharifa Yusupeva The instant case that dealt Court granted the bail to the Bail
Sayeda Zimova with the issue regarding grant petitioners and held that he application
Vs. of bail under Section 439 and substance recovered from allowed.
Poonam Puri, Air 482 of the Criminal the petitioner does not fall
Customs Officer Procedure Code, 1973, to a within the Schedule to the
foreign national. Act and, Therefore, no
MANU/DE/1957/2001 offence under the Act has
In the instant case, the been committed. Section 37
Decided On: 31.07.2000 petitioner was detained by of the Act cannot be
the customs authorities for pressed into service.
Coram: having committed offence
R.S. Sodhi, J. under Narcotic Drugs and
Psychotrophic Substances
Act, 1985, (NDPS) for
possessing ‘Diazepam(5mg)’
- It was contended by the
petitioner that ‘Diazepam’
was a prescribed drug
available in the open market
-
8 Pawan Mehta The appellants were held Court denied dismissed the Bail denied.
Vs. guilty under Sections 18 and application seeking
State 25 of the NDPS Act in the suspension of sentence till
case FIR No. 137/89, P.S. pendency of the appeal and
MANU/DE/1527/2001 Karol Bagh, and sentenced to held that Nothing was
imprisonment for ten years brought to my notice either
Decided On: 25.09.2001 and fine of Rs. 1 lac, in from the prosecution
default, further imprisonment evidence or documents
Coram: for one year each, by the wherefrom it can be
Surinder Kumar judgment and order dated 9th inferred that the appellant
Aggarwal, J. November, 2000, passed by could not have had the
the Court of Additional knowledge. On the basis of
Sessions Judge, Delhi. above material, at this
Appeals against the said stage, it is not possible to
judgment and order have hold that appellant has
already been admitted. This proved that the car in
order will dispose of their question was used for
applications under Section carrying the narcotic drugs
389, Cr.P.C. for suspension without his knowledge.
of sentence during pendency Detailed reference to the
of the appeal and for being judgments relied upon be
released on bail. learned Counsel for the
appellant is not necessary,
in view of the authoritative
pronouncement by the
Supreme Court in the case
of Abdul Rashid Ibrahim
Mansuri v. State of Gujarat
9 Chander Mohan Sharma The petitioner has filed this Bail denied to the petitioner Bail denied.
Vs. petition under Section 439 and court held that As such Drugs found
N.C.B. Delhi Zone Unit Cr.P.C. for grant of bail. The the question whether the were of
petitioner was found in provision of Section 50 of commercial
MANU/DE/1682/2002 possession of 1 kg. of heroin. the Act was or was not quantity.
complied with could be
Decided On: 25.09.2002 raised by the petitioner
before the trial court after
Coram: the evidence has been
Mahmood Ali Khan, J. recorded. The contention
raised in this bail petition
by the petitioner is
premature. No other point
was urged on behalf of the
petitioner. Restriction
imposed on granting bail in
such cases by Section 37 of
the Act shall apply.
10 Hegedus Lahel Csaba This application for Court dismissed the Bail denied.
Vs. suspension of sentence application for suspension
Union of India (UOI) during the pendency of the and held that For the
and Ors. appeal has been moved on purpose of Section 37 of
behalf of the appellant who the Act an accused may ask
MANU/DE/2028/2002 stands convicted under the Court to record its
Section 20(B)(ii) and Section satisfaction on the basis of
Decided On: 19.12.2002 23 read with Section 28 of preponderance of
the NDPS Act (hereinafter probability regarding his
Coram: referred to as "the Act" only). innocence. The difficulty,
Ramesh Chandra The appellant was sentenced however, in the present
Chopra, J. by the Trial Court to undergo case is that the appellant-
RI for 10 years and pay a petitioner has been found to
fine of Rs. 1 lakh, in default be guilty on the basis of
of which he was ordered to evidence led by the
undergo further RI for six prosecution before the Trial
months. The appellant who is Court. The plea that the bag
a foreign national was a from which the contraband
transit passenger from Nepal was recovered was in an
to Amsterdam. On the open condition appears to
intervening night of 26th and be of no help to the
27th June, 1997, he was appellant for the reason that
searched at IGI Airport New a large quantity of
Delhi and was found to be in contraband was found in
possession of 13.476 kgs. his bag which admittedly
Charas. The appellant was belonged to him. If some
put to trial. Learned Trial small quantity Had been
Judge after considering the recovered the Court could
prosecution evidence and the have entertained a
defense of the appellant suspicion that the said
convicted and sentenced him contraband was put into his
as aforesaid. His appeal open bag without his
against conviction and knowledge and could have
sentence is pending disposal reasonably entertained a
before this Court. doubt in regard to his
complicity. Therefore, by
preponderance of
probability, at this stage the
Court is not in a position to
record its satisfaction that
there are grounds for
believing that the appellant
is not guilty of offence for
which he has been
convicted.
11 Manoj Kumar Gupta This petition under Section Court granted the bail Bail
Vs. 439 of the Code of Criminal application and held that application
State N.C.T. of Delhi Procedure is for grant of bail Prima facie there appears to allowed.
to the petitioner, who was be no believable evidence
MANU/DE/2030/2002 arrested in case FIR No. against the petitioner to
14/01 under Section 29 of the hold him guilty of the
Decided On: 19.12.2002 NDPS Act offence under Sections
21/29 of the Act.
Coram:
Ramesh Chandra The Courts are not
Chopra, J. expected to accept every
word of the prosecution as
gospel truth and invoke the
bar of Section 37 against an
accused even if the
evidence against him
appears to be ridiculous and
unbelievable.
12 Vijay By this petition under Court granted the bail to the Bail
Vs. Section 439, Cr.P.C. read petitioner and held that application
State (NCT) with Section 37, NDPS Act, there is nothing on record allowed.
petitioner is seeking bail in to indicate that petitioner
MANU/DE/1374/2003 case FIR No. 119/2003 under was ever in possession of
Sections 15/61/85, NDPS the poppy straw or that he
Decided On: 29.10.2003 Act, P.S. Vasant Kunj. knew or had reason to
Prosecution allegations, in believe that poppy straw
Coram: brief, are that petitioner was was being carried in the
Surinder Kumar found standing near Contessa dicky of the car, in the
Aggarwal, J. car bearing registration No. peculiar facts and
DLICF 6343 Along with his circumstances of the case
co-brother Ruppi. Ruppi had
opened the dicky of the car
from where 170 kgs. of
poppy straw was recovered.
Learned APP for the State,
strongly opposing the bail
application, contended that
Ruppi is the co-brother of the
petitioner; his disclosure
statement reveals that they
had jointly brought the poppy
straw.
13 Mangna By this petition under Court granted the bail to the Bail allowed.
Vs. Section 439, Cr.P.C. read petitioner and held that the Court.
State with Section 37 Narcotic requisites for grant of bail,
Drugs and Psychotropic as envisaged by Section 37 Substance
MANU/DE/1293/2003 Substances Act, 1985 (for of the Act, are fully allegedly
short 'NDPS Act') petitioner satisfied. Furthermore, found in
Decided On: 03.11.2003 is seeking bail in case FIR petitioner is a lady; she was possession of
No. 831/99, under Sections granted interim bail earlier petitioner
Coram: 21/61/85 NDPS Act, P.S. and there is nothing to less than
Surinder Kumar Mangolpuri. Petitioner's first show that she committed small
Aggarwal, J. application for bail was any offence while on quantity
dismissed by Hon'ble Mr. interim bail.
Justice J.D. Kapoor vide
order dated 13.11.2002
passed in Crl. M. (M) No.
3691/2002.
14 Rajni Devi Present application has been Court granted the bail to the Bail
Vs. filed seeking interim bail on petitioner and held that application
The State ground of marriage of Parliament had provided allowed.
petitioner's son and that the person accused of
MANU/DE/0816/2005 engagement ceremony. an offence under the NDPS
Petitioner is accused under Act should not be released
Decided On: 24.01.2005 section 21 and 29 of NDPS on bail during trial unless
Act. mandatory conditions
Coram: provided under Section 37
Badar Durrez Ahmed, J. of the said Act are
complied with. This is what
has been held by the
Supreme Court in the
decision cited hereinabove
in paragraph 8 thereof. It
clearly implies that unless
the mandatory conditions
are satisfied, where the bar
of Section 37 is attracted,
the accused should not be
released on bail. This,
however, does not mean
that the accused cannot be
released on bail under any
situation. If the mandatory
conditions are satisfied then
the court can release a
person on bail even under
the NDPS Act. In the facts
of the present case,
particularly, because on
earlier four occasions, the
Additional Sessions Judge
as well as this court were
satisfied that clear grounds
were made for grant of
interim bail and the same
had not been misused, I feel
that there is no reason why
this application should not
be allowed.
15 Sartori Livio Petitioner submits that the Court granted the bail to the Bail
Vs. alleged recovery from the petitioner and held that application
The State (Delhi petitioner is of 20 gms of nationality cannot ground allowed.
Admin) charas and 20 gms of smack, to deny the bail. Court did not
both of which are far below speak on the
MANU/DE/0217/2005 the commercial quantity. He quantity of
further submits that this is the drug.
Decided On: 22.02.2005 the second application for
bail. Earlier, the application
Coram: for bail was rejected by this
Badar Durrez Ahmed, J. court on 04.11.2004 He says
that since then, four more
witnesses have been
examined and there are
several contradictions in their
statements with regard to the
recovery and the manner in
which the samples have been
sent to the FSL for testing.
He also submits that insofar
as 20 gms of charas are
concerned, the punishment
would be of six months only
and that period has already
been undergone by the
petitioner, who is in judicial
custody since 6.06.2004 The
learned counsel for the
petitioner, Therefore, argued
that as the bar of Section 37
of the NDPS Act would not
be applicable, this is a fit
case in which the petitioner,
who is an Italian national,
should be granted bail.
16 Premwati Petitioner accompanied her Court rejected the bail Bail denied.
Vs. husband while delivering application and held that Commercial
Narcotics Control heroin to other person. Court Considering all these facts, quantity of
Bureau already rejected bail although on merits, I am drug
application twice on facts not inclined to grant bail to involved.
MANU/DE/0368/2005 and circumstances of the the petitioner, particularly
case. Again she moved the in view of the fact that this
Decided On: 14.03.2005 present application for bail. court had on two earlier
occasions rejected the bail
Coram: applications, I direct that
Badar Durrez Ahmed, J. the trial court shall
conclude the trial as
expeditiously as possible
preferably within a period
of six months from the next
date of hearing.
17 Mohd Sakeel Present petition filed by Court granted the bail to the Bail
Vs. petitioner for grant of bail for accused and held that No application
State (NCT of Delhi) offence under Section 20 of criminal antecedent of the allowed.
Act . petitioner has been pointed
MANU/DE/0823/2005 out and, Therefore, it is
It is the contention of the clear that there is no
Decided On: 20.04.2005 learned counsel for the likelihood of the petitioner
petitioner that the petitioner committing any offence
Coram: has been falsely implicated in while on bail. In these
Badar Durrez Ahmed, J. this case. According to the circumstances, the
learned counsel for the petitioner is entitled to be
petitioner, nothing was released on bail and,
recovered from the petitioner accordingly, I direct that
nor was anything recovered the petitioner be released
pursuant to any disclosure on bail on furnishing a
statement on behalf of the personal bond in the sum of
petitioner. In fact, the learned Rs. 15,000/- with one
counsel for the petitioner surety of the like amount to
submitted that in the Section the satisfaction of the
67 of the NDPS Act concerned court.
statements purportedly made
by the petitioner, he has
nowhere admitted having
knowledge of the contents of
parcels which were
recovered at the New Delhi
Railway Station.
18 Jai Singh Petitioner submits that from Court granted the bail to the Bail
Vs. the accused recovery of 16 petitioner and held quantity application
NCT of Delhi kgs of poppy husk is alleged recovered was still a huge allowed.
MANU/DE/0728/2005 to have been made. He quantity, Section 37 of the Quantity of
further submits that as per NDPS Act was not drug evolved
Decided On: 21.04.2005 the prosecutions story a attracted as also the fact was huge.
further recovery of 16 kgs that earlier, when Petitioner
Coram: has been made from the co- had been granted interim
Badar Durrez Ahmed, J. accused. The commercial bail, he had not misused
quantity specified for poppy that facility, Petitioner be
husk is 50 kgs. Even if the released on bail on
recovery of both the persons furnishing a personal bond
is taken together, then also it in the sum with one surety
would be below the of the like amount to the
commercial quantity and, satisfaction of the
Therefore, according to the concerned Court
learned Counsel for the
petitioner, Section 37 of
NDPS Act would not be
applicable. He further
submits that there are no
criminal antecedents of the
present petitioner.
19 Mohd Ramzan Petition for bail -- Alleged Court granted the bail to the Bail
Vs. recovery of 22 Kgs of Ganja accused and held that application
State (NCT of Delhi) i.e. Indian Hemp from the necessary requirements of allowed.
petitioner -- As per FIR, Section 37 have been Commercial
MANU/DE/0662/2005 three samples of 600 gms fulfilled and Therefore this quantity was
each were taken but as per is a fit casein which the involved.
Decided On: 05.05.2005 CSFL report, three samples petitioner is to be released
contained 630 gms, 560 gms on bail
Coram: and 750 gms of Hemp
Badar Durrez Ahmed, J. respectively were received
by it
20 Shashi Kumar Saini The present petitioner is Court granted the bail to the Court
Vs. admittedly a juvenile within petitioner and held that the allowed the
The State the meaning of the Juvenile exception carved out for bail
Justice (Care and Protection not releasing a juvenile on application.
MANU/DE/0652/2005 of Children) Act, 2000. bail under Section 12 of the
Though, there is some Juvenile Justice Act, 2000
Decided On: 13.05.2005 dispute as to whether the is not made out in the
petitioner was 12 -+ years present case. Therefore, the
Coram: old or 14 years old. Be that mandatory provision of
Badar Durrez Ahmed, J. as it may, the petitioner being Section 12 has to be
a juvenile, the provisions of followed and the petitioner
Section 12 of the Juvenile is required to be released on
Justice Act, 2000 would be bail. The learned counsel
applicable. for the petitioner submits
that the petitioner's parents
The case for the prosecution are ready to undertake that
is that from the present they shall take full care and
petitioner an alleged keep a strict vigil over the
recovery of 9 kilograms 100 petitioner
grams of ganja is said to have
been made. The learned
counsel for the petitioner,
firstly, submitted that the
petitioner is entitled to bail in
terms of Section 12 of the
Juvenile Justice Act, 2000
and even otherwise the
alleged recovery is less than
half of the commercial
quantity specified and
accordingly the rigours of
Section 37 of the NDPS Act
would not be attracted.
21 Wernli Mnonika Application for bail by Court granted the bail to the Bail
Barbara terminally ill under trial, who petitioner and held that co- application
Vs. was also foreign national. accused has pleaded guilty allowed.
State Co-accused person pleaded and taking upon the entire Drug
guilty and took upon the blame, there are reasonable involved was
MANU/DE/0884/2005 entire blame grounds for believing that of
the petitioner is not guilty commercial
Decided On: 23.05.2005 of the offence. There is also quantity.
nothing to show that there
Coram: is a likelihood of the
Badar Durrez Ahmed, J. petitioner committing such
an offence while on bail.
There are no criminal
antecedents of the present
petitioner. Therefore, in my
view, the mandatory
provisions of Section 37 of
the NDPS Act for the grant
of bail, have been satisfied.
In addition to this, on
humanitarian grounds also,
the petitioner is entitled to
bail.
22 Ram Narayan There is an alleged recovery Court granted the bail to the Bail
Vs. from the petitioner of two petitioner and held that the application
State packets weighing 1.5 kgs and mandatory conditions for allowed.
500 gms. Both the packets grant of bail under Section Drugs
MANU/DE/0837/2005 were alleged to contain 37 of the NDPS Act (as quantity
Heroin. Samples were taken observed in the case of involved was
Decided On: 24.05.2005 from both these packets and Union of India v. Ram commercial.
were sent to the Forensic Samujh: 1999 (3) C.C. C
Coram: Science Laboratory for (SC) 22) stand satisfied.
Badar Durrez Ahmed, J. analysis. Insofar as the Accordingly, I direct that
sample from the packet the petitioner be released
weighing 500 gms was on bail on furnishing a
concerned, it did not test personal bond in the sum of
positive for diacetyl Rs.1 lakh with one surety
morphine (Heroin). So, we of the like amount to the
are only concerned with the satisfaction of the
packet weighing 1.5 kgs. The concerned court. It,
packets are alleged to have however, goes without
been recovered from the saying that the findings
petitioner outside the DSOI recorded by this Court are
Club at Dhaula Kuan while only tentative in nature and
the petitioner was waiting to the trial court is free to
supply the same to some decide the case on the basis
other person. Insofar as the of evidence adduced at the
sample taken from this 1.5 kg trial without in any manner
packet is concerned, the being prejudiced by any
report of the Forensic observations made in this
Science Laboratory indicates order.
that it contained 1.08%
diacetyl morphine (Heroin).
23 Kapil Dev Present application filed for Court grated the bail to the Bail
Vs. bail after rejection of first accused and held that it is application
The State bail application. satisfied that there are allowed.
reasonable grounds to Drugs
MANU/DE/0839/2005 It is a case for the believe that the petitioner quantity
prosecution that a recovery may not be ultimately involved was
Decided On: 24.05.2005 of 500 grams of heroin is convicted of the offences in commercial.
said to have been made from this case. There is nothing
Coram: the present petitioner. The brought to my notice to
Badar Durrez Ahmed, J. learned counsel for the indicate that the petitioner
petitioner submitted that no would be likely to commit
such recovery was made at an offence if granted bail.
all and the petitioner has He has no criminal
been framed in this case. He antecedents and that is a
further submitted that the relevant factor in coming to
petitioner's father Shri Gulab the opinion that there is no
Singh has, for several years likelihood of the petitioner
prior to the date of incident, committing an offence
been writing letters and under the NDPS Act while
articles with regard to the on bail.
spread of narcotic drugs and
the fact that the people
involved in narcotic drugs
and psychotropic substances
were not being apprehended.
To substantiate this aspect
the learned counsel for the
petitioner submitted that the
petitioner's father had written
various letters including
letters to the Prime Minister,
copies of some of which are
placed on record in the
present petition.
24 Mansoor Ahmed Shah The case for the prosecution Court rejected the bail and Bail
Vs. is that the petitioner along held that Accordingly, a application
State of Delhi with two other co-accused case for grant of bail has dismissed.
were each carrying bags on not been made out. The Commercial
MANU/DE/0741/2005 their left shoulders. From the learned counsel for the quantity
bag which was carried by the petitioner, however, involved.
Decided On: 27.05.2005 petitioner, two kilograms of submitted that since the
Coram: charas is said to have been trial is lingering on for
Badar Durrez Ahmed, J. recovered. Since the quite some time and the
commercial quantity petitioner has been in
quantified for charas is one custody since 04.03.2002
kilogram, Section 37 of the and only six out of 16
NDPS Act would be witnesses have been
attracted. examined, this Court may
issue a direction for
expediting the trial. The
learned counsel for the
State submitted that this is a
fair request and submitted
that looking at the situation
of the case, the trial can be
concluded within three
months from the next date
of hearing before the Trial
Court.
25 Tomar Asulin Petitioner, facing trial under Court allowed the bail and Court
Vs. sections 20/21/23/29 of held that conditions allowed bail
Customs NDPS Act 1985 seeks bail prescribed under section 37 application.
on the ground that he is in of NDPS Act satisfied. Commercial
MANU/DE/1113/2005 judicial custody since quantity was
2.4.2003 and that there is no involved.
Decided On: 23.08.2005 evidence against him. He
filed bail application.
Coram:
Pradeep Nandrajog, J.
26 Ansar Ahmed Present applications filed for Court granted the bail and Bail
Vs. grant of bail in conviction held that recovery of drugs application
State (Govt. of NCT of under Section 21 and 29 of from applicants would allowed.
Delhi) Act. come to in a small quantity. Small
Accordingly, rigours of quantity was
MANU/DE/1088/2005 Section 37 of Act would involved.
not apply
Decided On: 02.09.2005
Coram:
Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.
27 Manoj Kumar @ Goldy This is an application under Court rejected the bail Bail denied.
Vs. Section 389 Cr.P.C. for application and held that In Commercial
Sh. S.K. Srivastava, suspension of sentence and the present case the quantity
Intelligence Officer grant of bail. The appellant- applicant has already been involved.
(DRI) accused Manoj Kumar @ convicted and sentenced
Goldy has been convicted for after trial, so a prima facie
MANU/DE/2534/2005 offence punishable under finding about his not being
Section 29 of the Narcotic guilty is not warranted
Decided On: 17.11.2005 Drugs and Psychotropic under the law. Moreover
Substances Act, 1985 the applicant while
Coram: (hereinafter referred to as transporting 69.254 kilo
J.P. Singh, J. NDPS Act) and has been graphs of heroin was either
awarded 10 years RI and fine masquerading as a police
of Rs. 1 lakh in default of official and if he was
payment of fine RI for 6 actually a police official
months. and was indulging in such
anti humanity activities, it
is still more worst for him.
28 Vinod Kumar and Ors. This is an application under Court held that In the Bail
Vs. Section 389 Cr.P.C. for present case the applicants application
Sh. S.K. Srivastava, suspension of sentence and have already been dismissed.
Intelligence Officer grant of bail. The appellant- convicted and sentenced
(DRI) accused persons namely after trial, so a prima facie
Vinod Kumar and Jaspal finding about their not
MANU/DE/2789/2005 Singh have been convicted being guilty is not
for offence punishable under warranted under the law.
Decided On: 17.11.2005 Section 29 of the NDPS Act The applicants are engaged
and have been awarded 20 in anti-humanity activities.
Coram: years RI and fine of Rs. 2 They deserve no leniency.
J.P. Singh, J. lacs each in default of
payment of fine RI for 1
(one) year under Section
21(C) of the NDPS Act and
20 years of RI and fine of Rs.
2 lacs each and in default of
payment of fine further RI
for 1 (one) year under
Section 23(C) of the NDPS
Act and also RI for 10 years
and fine of Rs. 1 (one) lakh
each and in default of
payment of fine further RI
for 6 months under Section
29 of the NDPS Act.
29 Mahesh Pal Singh Petitioner found in Court granted the bail to the Bail
Vs. possession of 500 grams of petitioner and held that The application
The State contraband good - Actual petitioner has already been allowed.
content of diacetylmorphine in custody for over three Intermediate
MANU/DE/8764/2006 was found to be 25.5 grams - and half years, the actual quantities
Petitioner was in custody for quantity of heroin involved.
Decided On: 05.06.2006 three and half years - recovered from him is
Petitioner had no criminal alleged to be about 25.5
Coram: antecedents - Filed petition grams. The maximum
Badar Durrez Ahmed, J. for grant of bail - Petitioner punishment that can be
contended that actual content meted out to him for the
of diacetylmorphine is taken intermediate quantity under
into consideration for Section 21(b) of the NDPS
determining whether Act can be of 10 years with
recovery is small quantity or a fine which may extend up
a commercial quantity or to Rs. 1 lakhs. The recovery
intermediate quantity - is about 1/10th of the
Respondent contended that maximum quantity which
once substance is tested falls within the range of
positive for heroin its intermediate quantities.
percentage content in Therefore, looking at the
substance was irrelevant - proportionality, I feel that
Whether quantities would be the petitioner, even if it is
small or commercial only assumed that he is to be
actual content by weight of convicted, would be
diacetylmorphine is to be entitled to be released on
taken into consideration for bail. Particularly, as he has
question of the gravity of not antecedent criminal
recovery even when it is of history
an intermediate quantity -
Purity level indicates that
whether person is involved in
wholesale trade or is in retail
trade - Purity level recovered
from petitioner indicates that
he was involved in retail
trade.
30 Kashmir Singh Petition filed for grant of bail Court granted the bail and Bail
Vs. under section 37 of the held that on the materials application
Narcotics Control NDPS Act. on record there is a cloud allowed.
Bureau with regard to the recovery Twin
The learned Counsel for the itself. As regards the condition of
MANU/DE/9207/2006 petitioner submitted that question of the likelihood section 37
although an alleged recovery of the petitioner committing satisfied.
Decided On: 18.08.2006 of 1 Kg. of heroin is said to such an offence if released Commercial
have been made from the on bail, I find that the quantity
Coram: present petitioner and that the prosecution did not dispute involved.
Badar Durrez Ahmed, J. provisions of Section 37 of that the petitioner is not
the Narcotic Drugs and involved in any other case
Psychotropic Substances Act, under the NDPS Act. In
1985 would be attracted, yet fact, the learned Counsel
this is a case in which the for the petitioner had stated
petitioner is entitled to bail that the petitioner is not
because, according to him, involved in any other
there exist reasonable criminal case. Therefore, it
grounds that the petitioner does not appear that the
would not be convicted and petitioner is likely to
there is no likelihood of the commit any offence while
petitioner committing such on bail. The twin conditions
an offence if released on bail. of Section 37 of the NDPS
His main plank of argument Act having been satisfied,
is that the two recovery the petitioner is entitled to
witnesses namely Ravi and be released on bail.
Charan Singh were stock
witnesses used by the
prosecution in several cases.
He placed reliance on the
order
31 Rahul Saini Whether petitioner entitled to Court granted the bail to the Bail
Vs. bail - petitioner had no accused and held that application
The State criminal antecedents. In this nothing to show petitioner allowed.
case, there is an alleged had propensity to commit Commercial
MANU/DE/9097/2006 recovery of 2 kg of offence under NDPS Act - quantity was
contraband from co-accused held petitioner entitled to involved.
Decided On: 29.08.2006 Manish and a further be released on bail
recovery of 1.5 kg of
Coram: contraband from one room at
Badar Durrez Ahmed, J. B-3A, New Govind Pura,
Chander Nagar. This bail
application concerns the
second alleged recovery.
32 Vishal Sharma This is a bail application Court rejected the bail Bail
Vs. moved on behalf of the application and held that application
Shri Deepak Kumar accused Vishal Sharma. The there is an alleged recovery dismissed.
Mangotra case for the prosecution is of a substantial amount Commercial
that on 09.09.2003, on the (4.225 Kg.) of high grade quantity was
MANU/DE/7510/2007 basis of intelligence received heroin. Clearly, the rigours involved.
by the Department of of Section 37 of the NDPS
Decided On: 17.04.2007 Revenue Intelligence, one Act would come into play.
Maruti Zen Car bearing Having considered the facts
Coram: registration No. DL-6CB- and circumstances of the
Badar Durrez Ahmed, J. 6980 was intercepted near case, I am unable to
the crossing of Shyam persuade myself, at this
Garments, Central Market, stage, that there are
Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi at reasonable grounds for
about 10.30 am. There were believing that the petitioner
four persons in the car and is not guilty of the offence.
they were Gurmeet Singh, That being the case, the
who was allegedly the driver, limitations prescribed for
Purshottam Lal, Vishal the grant of bail under
Sharma and Som Nath Section 37 of the NDPS
Sharma, who were alleged to Act are not satisfied and,
be the owners of the car. As Therefore, the petitioner
per the prosecution, since the would not be entitled to bail
place was not proper for at this stage.
carrying out of the search,
the vehicle as well as the four
persons were taken to the
DRI office at I.P. Estate.
Two panch witnesses
namely, Manwar Singh and
Sate Singh were called. It is
alleged that on the search of
the vehicle, 4.225 kg of
contraband was recovered.
The CRCL report of the
sample taken indicated that
the substance had a content
of 89% of Diacetylmorphine.
In other words, the alleged
recovery was of a
commercial quantity of high
grade heroin.
33 Sonu @ Kane Petitioner filed bail Court granted the bail to the Bail
Vs. application under section 439 petitioner and held that In application
The State of CrPC. Non-commercial the present case, the allowed. A
quantity. Recovery of 1700 petitioner has already been little more
MANU/DE/7547/2007 gms of ganja--Custody for in custody for over eight than a small
more than 8 months. months. A little more than quantity was
Decided On: 21.04.2007 "small quantity" was involved.
recovered from the
Coram: petitioner and the
Reva Khetrapal, J. punishment for "small
quantity" of ganja under
Section 20(A) is rigorous
imprisonment for a term
which may extend to six
months or with a fine which
may extend up to Rs.
10,000/- or with both. The
recovery is about 1/12th of
the "commercial quantity",
the "commercial quantity"
being 20 kilograms and
falls within the range of
"intermediate quantity".
Even assuming that the
petitioner is convicted, the
"maximum punishment"
which can be meted out to
him under Section 20(B)
may extend to 10 years
with fine which may extend
up to Rs. 1 lac. However, it
has to be born in mind that
the maximum punishment
cannot be handed out to the
petitioner in view of the
fact that the quantity
recovered from him was
only a little more than
"small quantity" for which
the petitioner may be let off
with a fine of Rs. 10,000/-
or sentenced to six months
imprisonment. Therefore,
looking at the
proportionality of the
sentence which the
petitioner is likely to be
awarded even if convicted,
and the fact that the
petitioner has already
undergone 8 1/2 months of
incarceration, in my
considered opinion, the
petitioner deserves to be
released on bail.
THE GUWATI HIGH COURT
S. Name Of Case Issue Before The Court Decision Of The Court Remark
No.
1 Sankar Singh Applications for bail Under Court rejected the bail Bail
Vs. Section 37 of NDPS Act application and held that until denied.
State of Assam and read with Section 439 of a Special Court was
Anr. Code on ground that constituted Sessions Court
investigation was not was to discharge all functions
MANU/GH/0066/199 completed within a period and duties of Special Court -
3 of 90 days from date of Therefore provisions in
arrest. Clause (b) of Sub-section (1)
Decided On: of Section 37 of Act would
16.02.1993 apply to Sessions Court
exercising jurisdiction under
Coram: Act - Sessions Court was to
U.L. Bhat, C.J. and try case even without a
R.K. Manisana Singh, committal by Magistrate,
J. since committal was foreign
to scheme introduced by Act -
Thus, Proviso (a) to Sub-
section (2) of Section 167 of
Code was inapplicable to
persons arrested in connection
with an offence under Act and
Appellant was not entitled to
bail under these provision -
Application dismissed.
2 Shri Takhelmayum Petitioner had approached Court dismissed the Bail
Ibochou Singh under Section 438, Cr.P.C. anticipatory bail application denied.
Vs. for grant of anticipatory bail and held that Since, there was "Powers of
State of Manipur and for which he was arrested in prima facie case of Court under
Anr. connection with FIR under involvement of Petitioner in amended
Sections 20(b)(i) and FIR under Sections 20(b)(i) Section 37
MANU/GH/0069/199 Section 60(3) of NDPS. and 60(3) of NDPS Act - of NDPS
3 Whether, anticipatory bail Powers of High Court to grant Act are
could given to Petitioner - bail being subject to applicable
Decided On: Held, interim order was restriction contained in on High
12.08.1993 passed because Petitioner Section 37 of NDPS Act - Court in
was not named as Accused There was no scope to grant matter of
Coram: in FIR - Since, there was of anticipatory bail to granting
S.K. Hom Choudhury, prima facie case of Petitioner in exercise of power bail."
J. involvement of Petitioner in under Section 438, Cr.P.C -
FIR under Sections 20(b)(i) Therefore, Petition for grant
and 60(3) of NDPS Act - of anticipatory bail was
rejected.
3 N.L. Angshung Anal Petitioner had been arrested Court rejected the bail Bail
Vs. for committing an offence application and held that denied.
State of Manipur under Section 21 of Act . He offence charged against
filed bail application. Accused/Petitioner was "Unless
MANU/GH/0064/199 Whether the petitioner was punishable for 5 years or more conditions
4 entitled to bail as it involved possession of as
heroin. Therefore, Section 37 contemplat
Decided On: of Act was applicable in ed by
24.03.1994 matter - Hence, unless statutory
conditions/limitations as provisions
Coram: contemplated under Section are fully
Sujit Barman Roy, J. 37 of Act were fully satisfied, satisfied,
High Court had no High Court
jurisdiction/authority to grant has no
bail to Accused. jurisdiction
to grant
bail to
Accused."
4 Sahab Uddin (MD.) Bail applications filed under Court rejected the bail Bail
and Ors. Section 439 CrPC, read with applications and held that the denied.
Vs. Section 37 of the NDPS facts and circumstances as
State of Assam Act, the petitioners, namely, discussed above, does not
Md. Sahab Uddin and Shri satisfy that there exists
MANU/GH/0289/201 Bishu Das (Bail Application reasonable ground for
2 No. 885/2012), who have believing that the petitioners
been detained in custody, in are not guilty of the offence
Decided On: connection with Golakganj under the NDPS Act.
25.05.2012 P.S. Case No.63/2012,
under Section 468/420 IPC,
Coram: read with Sections 20(b)/22
C.R. Sarma, J. of the NDPS Act. have
prayed for releasing them
on bail. Similarly, the
petitioners, namely, Shri
Bhupendar Singh and Shri
Indrapal Singh (Bail
Application No. 886/ 2012),
who have been detained in
custody, have prayed for
releasing them on bail in
connection with Golakganj
P.S. Case No. 54/ 2012,
under Sections 20(b)/22 of
the NDPS Act.
THE GUJRAT HIGH COURT
S. No. Name Of Case Issue Before The Court Decision Of The Remark.
Court
1 Dahyabhai Gokalbhai The present petitioner Court rejected the Bail denied.
Vs. was arrested for the bail application
State of Gujarat offence punishable under and held that
Section 8 and Section section 37 of the
MANU/GJ/0205/1990 20(a)(b)(i) of the NDPS Act came
Narcotic Drugs and into play and thus
Decided On: Psychotropic Substances bail cannot be
04.09.1990 Act, 1985 in pursuance granted.
of the C.R. No. 43 of
Coram: 1990 of Savarkundla
T.U. Mehta, J. Town Police Station.
He moved a bail
application before the
Court.
2 Sardarsingh Nagsingh Whether for any alleged Court rejected the Bail denied.
Rajput (Sisodia) and lapse or default bail applications
Ors. committed by the and held that In
Vs. Investigating Agency in the matter of
State of Gujarat not submitting offences under
Chargesheet within the NDPS Act so far
MANU/GJ/0280/1993 prescribed time-limit of the default-bail
90 days as warranted under Section
Decided On: under Section 167(2)(a) 167(2)(a) of the
23.04.1993 of the Criminal Code as well as
Procedure Code, 1973, Section 36A(1)(b)
Coram: particularly in matter of of the said Act are
K.J. Vaidya, J. the offences punishable concerned, they in
under the NDPS Act, the view of firstly
accused are straightway Section 37
entitled to be released on (amended) and
such default bail, secondly, the
altogether overlooking Supreme Court
and ignoring the decision in case of
limitations imposed by Narcotic Control
the Legislature on Courts Bureau v. Kishan
on exercise of such Lal (supra) are out
powers under Section 37 of question.
(amended) of the said
Act?
Whether any lapse or
default committed by the
learned Magistrate in
contravening Section 36-
A(1)(b) of the NDPS Act
in not forwarding the
accused to Special/
Session Court
immediately on expiry of
15th day confers any
legal right upon the
accused to earn
mechanical default-bail
on the alleged ground
that as his further
continued detention in
judicial custody on
expiry of the said 15th
day, have been rendered
illegal and unauthorised,
turning blind eyes to the
gravity and seriousness
of the offence and deaf-
ears to the concern
voiced by the Legislature
in imposing limitations
on granting bail under
Section 37 (amended) of
the said Act?
3 Jyotiben Ramlal Present reference filed to Court dismissing Bail denied.
Purohit and etc. a larger Bench for the bail
Vs. considering the matter applications held
State of Gujarat and whether the convict that Court had to
Anr. under NDPS Act could bear in mind the
be released on parole or object, reasons
MANU/GJ/0217/1995 bail regarding security of and guidelines
Society - contained in
Decided On: Section 37 of Act.
14.12.1995
Coram:
B.C. Patel, M.S. Parikh
and N.N. Mathur, JJ.
4 Ambalal Ranchhodji Present application filed Court rejected the Bail denied.
Thakor under 439 of Cr.PC bail application
Vs. prayed for bail for and held that
State of Gujarat offences Sections 27, 37 accused was
and 52 of NDPS Act. found prima facie
MANU/GJ/0375/1996 to be in possession
of contraband
Decided On: substance - There
15.07.1996 was nothing on
record from which
oram: one can infer that
S.M. Soni, J. same was for
personal
consumption -
There was nothing
on record to show
that there were
materials or
equipments or
instruments which
may suggest
personal
consumption -
Thus, when
narcotic substance
was found from
possession of
accused, it cannot
be said that
prosecution had
failed to prove
conscious
possession till trial
was over -
5 Bipin Shantilal Panchal Trial Court rejected Court allowed the Bail allowed.
(II) application of Petitioner bail of the
Vs. for drop proceedings petitioner and held
State of Gujarat and against him for offences "Accused shall be
Anr. under Sections 22, 24 entitled for bail in
and 29 of the NDPS Act context of total
MANU/GJ/0012/2002 read with Section 120B period of long
of I.P.C. Hence this under gone trial."
Decided On: appeal before the Court.
01.05.2001
Coram:
C.K. Buch, J.
6 Sohil Safi Mohammad Additional Sessions Court rejected the Bail denied.
Vohra Judge dismissed petition and held
Vs. Petitioner regular bail that "Before
State of Gujarat Application while granting bail
exercising powers under authority must
MANU/GJ/0052/2002 Section 439 of Cr. P. C. - considered that
Hence, this Petition - presence of
Decided On: Whether, order passed by Accused in
15.05.2001 Additional Sessions Society does not
Judge dismissing bail adversely
Coram: Application of Petitioner affected."
H.K. Rathod, J. was justified.
7 Sohil Safi Mohammad In the present petition, Court rejected the Bail denied.
Vohra the order passed by the bail application
Vs. Additional Sessions and held that in
State of Gujarat Judge, Nadiad dated 19th such case powers
MANU/GJ/1009/2001 April, 2001 in Criminal under Section 439
Misc. Application No. of CrPC, 1973
Decided On: 223 / 2001 is challenged cannot be granted
15.05.2001 by the present petitioner. in favour of the
The petitioner has filed present petition
Coram: regular bail application and hence the
H.K. Rathod, J. before the Additional present petition is
Sessions Judge, Nadiad rejected
and that application has accordingly.
been rejected while
exercising the powers
under Section 439 of
CrPC, 1973.
8 Habibkhan Usmankhan Petitioner is accused Court rejected the Bail denied.
Pathan under Sections 8-C, 20-B bail application
Vs. and 29 of NDPS Act. and held that
State of Gujarat Bail application wherein the
dismissed by Special imprisonment is
MANU/GJ/0215/2004 Court - imprisonment minimum 10 years
was minimum 10 years and therefore,
Decided On: for offence registered Section 37
04.05.2004 against petitioner squarely applied
and it is not the
Coram: case of the
H.K. Rathod, J. petitioner that
Section 37 is not
applicable.
9 Syed Babar Chisty Son The present application is Court dismissed Bail denied.
of Shri Hamid Chisty filed under Section 37 of the bail
Vs. N.D.P.S. Act read with application and
State of Gujarat Section 439 of Criminal held that section
Procedure Code. 37 came into play
MANU/GJ/0932/2008 in the matter.
Decided On:
13.10.2008
THE HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT
S. Name Of Case Issue Before The Court Decision Of The Remark.
No. Court
1 Hari Chand The present petition was Court rejected the Bail denied.
Vs. filed praying bail. The bail application
State petitioner was charged and held that
under the NDPS Act. Since the entire
MANU/HP/0116/1991 evidence against
the petitioner is to
Decided On: 25.07.1991 be adduced before
the trial Court in
Coram: the next month
V.K. Mehrotra, A.C.J. itself, and its
effect is to be
considered by that
Court. I am not
inclined to direct
that the petitioner
be enlarged on
bail at this
2 Manoj Kumar and etc. A case for offences Court allowed the Bail granted.
Vs. punishable under Section bail application Quantity of drugs
State of H.P. 20 of Act and Section 34 and held that involved was
of IPC was registered Taking into small.
MANU/HP/0075/2002 against petitioners - consideration the
Hence, petitioners filed entirety of the
Decided On: 14.03.2002 present petitions for grant circumstances, the
of bail quantity of the
Coram: contraband and
K.C. Sood, J. the fact that both
the petitioners are
in custody since 4-
5-2001, I allow
these petitions and
direct that
petitioner Manoj
Kumar be released
on his furnishing
bonds in the
amount of Rs.
Three lacs with
two sureties each
of the like
amount, one of
which should be
local resident of
Solan District and
Shashi Kumar be
released on his
furnishing bonds
in the amount of
Rs. Two lacs with
two sureties each
of the like
amount, one of
which should be
local resident of
Solan District to
the satisfaction of
learned Sessions
Judge/Special
Judge, Solan.
3 Mehar Chand his petition for grant of Court rejected the Bail denied.
Vs. bail under Section 439 of bail application
State of Himachal the Code of Criminal and held that
Pradesh Procedure has been filed when accused
by applicant Mehar stands charged for
MANU/HP/0142/2001 Chand, who was arrested the offence
in case FIR No. 74 of punishable under
Decided On: 28.06.2001 2001 dated February 14, the Act, it was
2001 registered with the difficult to say
Coram: Police Station, Kullu, that accused was
K.C. Sood, J under Section 20 of the not guilty of the
NDPS Act. offence with
which he was
charged when
evidence was yet
to be led
4 Nirmal Singh Present petition filed Court rejected the Bail denied.
Vs. under Section 439 of the bail application Commercial
State of Himachal Code of Criminal and held that falls quantity was
Pradesh Procedure 1973 for grant under commercial involved.
of bail in connection with quantity and bail
MANU/HP/0104/2015 case FIR No. 82 of 2012 is prohibited qua
dated 27.10.2012 commercial
Coram: registered under Sections quantity as per
Piar Singh Rana, J. 15-61 of NDPS Act 1985 Section 37 of
at Police Station N.D.P.S. Act 1985
Barotiwala District Solan is accepted for the
H.P. reasons
hereinafter
mentioned. In
view of rider
imposed under
Section 37 of
N.D.P.S. Act 1985
qua commercial
quantity Court is
of the opinion that
it is not expedient
in the ends of
justice to release
the applicant on
bail. Point No. 1 is
answered in
negative.
5 Rakesh Kumar alias This application under Court rejected the Bail denied.
Kukka Section 438, Cr.P.C. has bail and held that
Vs. been filed by the After having
State of H.P. petitioner for admitting heard learned
Him to bail for offence counsel for the
MANU/HP/0038/2003 alleged against him under parties and
FIR No. 98 of 2003 of looking to the
Decided On: 28.02.2003 Police Station Una. This provisions of
FIR was registered on 3- Section 37 of the
Coram: 2-2003. N.D.P.S. Act,
A.K. Goel, J. 1985, I am of the
considered views
that application
under Section 438,
Cr.P.C. would not
lie for an offence
under the said
Act. Because
when a reference
is made to Section
37 of the N.D.P.S.
Act, 1985, it starts
with non obstante
clause and under
what
circumstances bail
can be granted
have been
enumerated in the
Section itself.
6 Ranbir Singh Petition under Section Court rejected the Bail denied.
Vs. 439 of the Code of bail application Commercial
State of H.P. Criminal Procedure, and held that the quantity of drugs
1973 (Cr.P.C.) for grant accused was was involved.
MANU/HP/0138/2002 of bail on the ground that apprehended on
the prosecution had 12.12.2001 and is
Decided On: 25.03.2002 failed to put up the in custody
charge sheet against the thereafter.
Coram: accused within a period According to the
M.R. Verma, J. of 90 days prosecution, he
was found in
possession of 4
kgs. 900 grams of
charas i.e.
commercial
quantity. It is also
not in dispute that
the charge sheet
against him has
now been
presented on
16.3.2002,
whereas the
period of 180 days
during which the
pre trial detention
of the accused in
custody can be
lawfully ordered
by virtue of the
provisions of
Section 36A of the
NDPS Act, has
not expired as yet.
The accused,
therefore, is not
entitled to be
released on bail by
virtue of the
provisions of
Section 167 of the
Code.
7 State of H.P. This criminal revision at Court while Bail cancelled.
Vs. the instance of the State allowing the Commercial
Munshi Ram of Himachal Pradesh is revision quantity was
directed against the application and involved.
MANU/HP/0077/2002 judgment dated 9-4-2002 thus cancelling the
passed by the Additional bail held that the
Decided On: 07.11.2002 Sessions Judge (II), quantity 1 kg.
Kangra at Dharamshala, involved in the
Coram: whereby respondent was present case is
Kamlesh Sharma, J. granted bail in the sum of commercial
Rs. 25,000/- with one quantity and the
surety in the like amount limitations as
to the satisfaction of any prescribed under
Judicial Magistrate at Section 37(1)(b)
Dharamshala on the are applicable.
conditions set out therein. cancelled.
8 State of Himachal Present application has Court cancelled Bail cancelled.
Pradesh been filed by the State the bail and held
Vs. under Section 439(2) that After
Deen Mohd. read with Section 482 of analysing the
the Code of Criminal underlining
MANU/HP/0167/1998 Procedure, 1973 seeking principles of law
to set aside the order governing the
Decided On: 10.12.1998 dated 9.6.1998 of grant of bail or
Sessions Judge, Chamba discharging the
Coram: in B.A. No. 75 of 1998 accused arrested
D. Raju, C.J. and L.S. where by the accused- under the NDPS
Respondent was released Act, we are of the
Panta, J. on bail for offence considered
punishable under Section opinion that such
20 of NDPS Act. an accused is not
entitled to be
enlarged on bail
on the sole ground
of an assumption,
even at the pretrial
stage that if the
investigation of
the case is carried
out by the police
officer who had
seized and
recovered the
contraband and
filed formal F.I.R.
or complaint such
investigation is
unfair and against
the basic tenets of
criminal
jurisprudence. The
question has
necessarily to be
examined and
decided by the
Trial Court at
appropriate stage
if and when urged
before it in the
peculiar nature of
provisions and
powers of the
officers under the
Act and the effect
of such
investigation
should not be
considered a base
for enlarging the
accused on bail
ignoring the
provisions
contained in
Section 37 of
NDPS Act.
THE JAMMU & KASHMIR HIGH COURT
S. No. Name of Case Issue before the Court Decision of the Remark
1 Court
Harbans Kour Petitioner, Harbans Kour was Court rejected the Bail
Vs. arrested on July 9, 1993 on a bail application and denied.
charge of trading in opium. held that nothing
The State She was booked Under before me at this
Section 17 of the Narcotic stage to form a prima
MANU/JK/0039/1993 Drugs and Psychotropic facie belief whether
Substances Act, 1985 she is not guilty of
Decided On: following seizure of 3 K.Gs the offence or
13.09.1993 of opium from her room and whether she is not
is standing trial before the likely to commit any
Coram: Ld. Sessions Judge, Jammu. offence while on
B.A. Khan, J. Her bail application has been bail. Therefore, it is
rejected by the trial court and difficult to allow this
she has now come up to this application for the
Court for her release. present.
Present petition was seeking
bail.
THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
S. No. Name of Case Issue before the Court Decision of the Remark
1 Dondusa Nemasa Court Bail denied.
Baddi The accused has challenged Court rejected the
2 Vs. in this Appeal his bail application and Bail denied.
State of Karnataka conviction by the I held held At this
Decided On: Additional Sessions Judge, stage keeping in
26.07.1993 Dharwad, sitting at Hubli, view the seriousness
under Section 34 of the of the offences
MANU/KA/0232/1993 Karnataka Excise Act, found committed by
Coram: Sections 17, 18 and 20 of the appellant
the NDPS Act. Section 5 of including possession
D.P. Hiremath and K. the Explosive Substances of arms and
Jagannatha Shetty, JJ. Act and Section 25 of the ammunition in large
Indian Arms Act, and has quantity unlawfully
Ilyas applied under I.A.I, for bail. it would be rather
Vs. He has been sentenced to hazardous to grant
State of Karnataka undergo R.I. for 10 years bail to the
MANU/KA/0326/1993 and to pay a fine of petitioner..
Decided On: Rs.1,00,000/- for the
06.08.1993 offences under Sections Court rejected their
Coram: 17/18 of the NDPS Act; R.I
M. Ramakrishna, J. for 5 years and fine of bail application and
Rs.25,000/- for the offence
under Section 29 of the held that The Court
NDPS Act, R.I. for 10 years
and a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- should satisfy the
for the offence under
Section 20 of the NDPS conditions laid
Act; R.I. for 5 years for the
offence under Section 5 of down under Clause
the Explosive Substances
Act and R.I. for 3 years (1)(ii) of Section 37
with a fine of Rs.8,000/- for
the offence under Section of the Act. Without
25 of the Indian Arms Act.
The petitioners have filed a finding on this
these Petitions to release
them on bail pending aspect, a person
disposal of their case. The
petitioners found to be in accused of an
possession of Brown Sugar
which attracts restrictions offence punishable
under the NDPS Act. The
case registered against the
petitioners is punishable
under Section 22 of the
NDPS Act.
under Section 22 of
the Act is not
entitled to be
released on bail. It is
difficult to hold that
there are reasonable
grounds for
believing that the
petitioners are not
guilty and they are
not likely to commit
any offence while
on bail.
3 The Intelligence The petitioner has Court while Bail denied.
Officer, Directorate of challeged the order dated 5- cancelling the bail
Revenue Intelligence, 2-1997, passed by the held that while
Bangalore District and Sessions Judge, granting the bail to
Vs. Belgaum, in Special Case the respondent,
Mohammed Abdul No. 10 of 1997 directing to special judge
Rab alias Babloo and release the petitioners on overlooked the
Others bail. The accused has been provisions of the
charged under the NDPS section 37 of the
MANU/KA/0294/1998 Act. NDPS.
Decided On:
17.04.1998
Coram:
M.P. Chinnappa, J.
4 R. Veeraiyan The appellant-accused has Court dismissed the Bail denied.
Vs. been convicted for the appeal and held that
Intelligence Officer, offence punishable Under As re-stated by the
Narcotics Control Section 21 of the Narcotic Apex Court, a
Bureau, South Zone, Drugs and Psychotropic sentence awarded
Chennai Substances Act, 1985. He under the NDPS Act
filed the present application can be suspended by
MANU/KA/0318/2001 praying suspension of the the appellate court
sentence till pendency of only and strictly
Decided On: appeal. subject to the
04.07.2001 conditions spelt out
in Section 37 of the
Coram: Act, It has to be
Mohammad Anwar, J. presumed for the
purpose of Section
37(1)(b)(ii) that the
appellant-accused is
prima facie guilty of
the said offence.
5 K.P. Sadath and Anr. Both these petitioners in Court rejected the Bail denied.
Vs. Crime No. 109 of 2001 of bail application and
State by Virajapet the respondent-Police held that section 37
Town Police Station, Station for the offence of the NDPS comes
Kodagu District under Section 20(b) of the into play.
Narcotic Drugs and
MANU/KA/0012/2002 Psychotropic Substances
Act, 1985 ('N.D.P.S. Act'),
Decided On: have approached this Court
26.09.2001 with their petition under
Section 439 of the Cr. P.C.
Coram: when their similar
Mohammad Anwar, J. application for bail was
rejected by the learned
Sessions Judge by his order
dated 9-7-2001.
6 Syed Abdul Ala The petitioner who is Court granted the Bail granted
Vs. accused 1 along with 5 bail application and on medical
Narcotic Control others charge-sheeted for held that In the ground.
Bureau, South Zone committing offences present case, the
punishable under Sections medical reports are
MANU/KA/0711/2002 80, 21, 25, 28 and 29 of the produced. The
NDPS Act, by the Narcotic petitioner is
Decided On: Control Bureau, South suffering from
17.12.2002 Zone, Chennai, in Special serious heart ailment
Case No. 24 of 2000 on the and there is 90%
Coram: file of the Sessions Judge, blockage of his
K. Sreedhar Rao, J. for Narcotic Drugs and arteries, immediate
Psychotropic Substances, bypass surgery is
Bangalore City. The advised. Even after
petitioner seeks bail on bypass surgery, the
medical ground as well as post-operative care
on the ground of delay that and treatment is
trial is not concluded even necessary. A patient
after a lapse of 3 years. undergoing bypass
surgery cannot have
This petition is filed under brisk and risky
Section 439 of the Cr. P.C., movements. In that
for grant of bail. view, I find that the
petitioner at the time
of operation and
after the operation
for substantial time
has to remain docile.
It may not be
probable that the
petitioner would
make any drastic
physical efforts to
abscond hazarding
his life.
7 Thippeshappa This is an application under Court allowed the Bail
Vs. Section 389 of the Cr. P.C. bail application and granted.
State by Channagiri by the appellant-accused held that The Prosecution
Police for suspension of sentence punishment failed to
and for bail in SPL. NDPS. prescribed is of 3 make out
MANU/KA/0074/2005 No. 4 of 2002, dated 6-1- categories. The first exact
2005 passed by the learned category involving quantity of
Decided On: District and Sessions Judge, small quantity drug.
14.03.2005 Davanagere convicting the where the
accused for the offence punishment is with
Coram: under Section 20(b)(i) of rigorous
N.S. Veerabhadraiah, the NDPS Act, 1985 and imprisonment for a
J. sentencing him to under go term which may
R.I. for one year and to pay extend to six
a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in months, or with fine
default to under go S.I. for which may extend to
3 months. ten thousand rupees,
or with both. The
second category
involving quantity
lesser than
commercial quantity
but greater than
small quantity
where the
punishment
prescribed is with
rigorous
imprisonment for a
term which may
extend to ten years
and with fine which
may extend to one
lakh rupees and the
third category
involving
commercial quantity
where the
punishment
prescribed is with
rigorous
imprisonment for a
term which shall not
be less than ten
years, but which
may extend to
twenty years and
shall also be liable
to fine which shall
not be less than one
lakh rupees but
which may extend to
two lakh rupees,
provided the Court
may for reasons to
be recorded in the
judgment, impose
lesser sentence.
8 Rasheed Petitioners are accused in Court rejected the Bail denied.
Vs. Crime No. 62/2006 (FIR bail application and
The State of No. 21/06) of Santapur held that If the
Karnataka, through Police Station, Aurad prosecutor makes
Santhpur Police Taluk, registered for the prayer for extension
offences punishable under of time for keeping
MANU/KA/0756/2007 Sections 20(b)(ii)(c) of the detenues in the
NDPS Act These custody for one year
Decided On: petitioners were found prior to the release
21.02.2007 transporting 224 KGs. of of detenues on bail,
ganja contained in six the Court if required
gunny bags in a Scorpio car in the interest of the
on 11.6.2006 at about 10.30 investigation could
a.m. The police have seized reject the bail
the ganja as well as the application.
aforesaid vehicle used for
transportation. The
petitioners are apprehended
alongwith the drug after
chasing for certain distance
when they tried to escape.
They have filed this petition
praying for the relief of
releasing them on bail.
9 Inspector of Customs, Present petition was filed Court cancelled the Bail
HQRS seeking cancellation of bail bail and held that cancelled.
Vs. granted to the accused who The learned Special Commercial
Betrand Tochukwu is charged under Sections Judge ignoring the quantity
Ikwuka 21, 23, 27-A, 28 & 29 of relevant provisions was
the NDPS Act. of the Act and the involved.
MANU/KA/1409/2010 documents by
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