S. 37 NDPS Act| Court's Prima Facie Satisfaction In Favour Of Accused Must Be Based On 'Reasonable Grounds': Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has observed that while granting bail under Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, a Court must have "reasonable grounds" to believe prima facie innocence of the accused and that the accused will not commit a similar offense while on bail.

Section 37 of the Act deals with classification of the offences contained within the Act and provides for cases where bail can be granted to the accused person. It provides dual conditions for bail in case of certain offences: one, prima facie opinion of the innocence of the accused and two, the accused will not commit a similar offense while on bail.

In this backdrop, Justice Chandra Dhari Singh observed,

"under Section 37(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act, the court is not required to be merely satisfied about the dual conditions i.e., prima facie opinion of the innocence of the accused and that the accused will not commit a similar offense while on bail but the court must have "reasonable grounds" for such satisfaction."

It added,

"Thus, the term 'reasonable grounds' is not capable of any rigid definition but its meaning and scope will be determined based on the surrounding facts and circumstances of each case. Thus, what may be reasonable in one set of facts may not be reasonable in another set of facts. However, the standard of satisfaction in such cases is more than mere satisfaction on a prima facie opinion. Thus, the court before exercising its discretion for granting the bail must record the reasonable grounds before granting bail to the accused," the Court said.

It was also observed that the Court has to be conscious about the mischief that is sought to be curbed by the Act and the consequences that might ensue if the person accused of the offense under the Act is released on bail.

"Additionally, the court also needs to be satisfied that the person so released will not commit the offense while being on bail. Both the conditions are interlinked because the legislature intends that in cases where there is a possibility of commission of this grave offence under the Act, the person need not be released. It is so because if the person is released, he is most likely to repeat the offense, thus impacting the society at large. Thus, to not give any leeway to the accused, the court has to be satisfied about the dual conditions on reasonable grounds," the Court said further.

The said observation was made while the Court denied bail to a man allegedly involved in a case where about a total of seven gunny bags carrying 315 kg of Cannabis were recovered.

Dealing with the bail plea, the Court said that the offenses prescribed under the Act are not only a menace to a particular individual but to the entire society especially, the youth of the country.

"Such offenses have a cascading effect and are in vogue these days, thus destroying the capabilities and lives of a big chunk of the population and trend has been growing over the years. Thus, in order to prevent the devastating impact on the people of the nation, Parliament in its wisdom deemed it fit to introduce stringent conditions for grant of bail under the Act. The Court has to stay mindful of the legislative intent and mandate of the Act while granting bail in such matters," it added.

"As far as condition under Section 37(b)(i) is concerned, there is no ambiguity in its interpretation. It gives effect to the doctrine of audi alteram partem. Since the crime is an act against the society, the legislature has contemplated that the Public Prosecutor must be given an opportunity to oppose a bail application under the Act."

With the aforesaid observations, the bail plea was dismissed.

Case Title: PRAMOD v. STATE OF NCT DELHI

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 36

Click Here To Read Order