NDPS Act | Courts Should Be Slow In Granting Even Regular Bail To Accused When Huge Quantities Of Narcotics Are Recovered: Supreme Court

Recently, the Supreme Court observed that the Courts should be slow in granting bail to the accused in case of recovery of huge quantity of narcotic substance from the accused.

Reversing the decision of the High Court which granted anticipatory bail to the accused against whom an FIR is being registered of conspiring in the procurement/supply of 232.5 Kg of ganja, the Bench Comprising Justices B.R Gavai and Sandeep Mehta observed that the High Court not only omitted to record any such satisfaction but has rather completely ignored the factum of recovery of narcotic substance (ganja), multiple times the commercial quantity.

“The High Court also failed to consider the fact that the accused has criminal antecedents and was already arraigned in two previous cases under the NDPS Act.”, the judgment authored by Justice Sandeep Mehta observed.

An FIR was registered against the accused respondent for the offences punishable under Sections 8(c), 20(b)(ii)(c) and 29(1) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. The allegation levied upon the accused respondent was that he conspired for the procurement/supply of the ganja recovered from other accused persons.

The High Court granted anticipatory bail to the accused who was indicted as the conspirator for procurement/supply of the 232.5 kg ganja so recovered.

The Public Prosecutor appearing for the State in the High Court opposed the prayer for the grant of anticipatory bail to the respondent -accused, however, the High Court considered the application for the grant of anticipatory bail and allowed the same.

It is against the impugned order of the High Court that the criminal appeal was preferred by the State against the grant of anticipatory bail to the respondent accused.

At the outset, after perusing the impugned order of the High Court and Section 37 of the NDPS Act, the court observed that the court has to mandatorily record the satisfaction that the accused is not guilty of the offence alleged.

“..a plain reading of statutory provision makes it abundantly clear that in the event, the Public Prosecutor opposes the prayer for bail either regular or anticipatory, as the case may be, the Court would have to record a satisfaction that there are grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of the offence alleged and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.”, the Supreme Court observed.

According to the court, for entertaining a prayer for bail in a case involving the recovery of a commercial quantity of narcotic drug or psychotropic substance, the Court would have to mandatorily record the satisfaction in terms of the rider contained in Section 37 of the NDPS Act.

 The court noted that where a huge quantity of narcotic substance is being recovered from the accused having criminal antecedents then the court should be slow in granting bail to the accused.

"In case of recovery of such a huge quantity of narcotic substance, the Courts should be slow in granting even regular bail to the accused what to talk of anticipatory bail more so when the accused is alleged to be having criminal antecedents."

The court also expressed displeasure with the strange adopted by the High Court while granting anticipatory bail to the respondent accused.

“Manifestly, a very strange approach has been adopted by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order whereby the anticipatory bail was granted to the respondent on the condition that the appellant would deposit a sum of Rs. 30,000/¬ to the credit of the registered Tamil Nadu Advocate Clerk Association, Chennai along with various other conditions. The condition no. [a] (supra) so imposed by the High Court is totally alien to the principles governing bail jurisprudence and is nothing short of perversity.”

As a result, finding the impugned order of the High Court as cryptic and perverse, the same is set aside and quashed by the Supreme Court.

“As a consequence, the impugned order is cryptic and perverse on the face of the record and cannot be sustained. Thus, the same is quashed and set aside.” 

The accused respondent is directed to surrender before the learned trial court within 10 days from the date of the order.

For Petitioner(s) Mr. V. Krishnamurthy, Sr. A.A.G. Mr. D.Kumanan, AOR Mrs. Deepa. S, Adv. Mr. Sheikh F. Kalia, Adv. Mr. Veshal Tyagi, Adv.

For Respondent(s) Mr. G.Sivabalamurugan, AOR Mr. Selvaraj Mahendran, Adv. Mr. C.Adhikesavan, Adv. Mr. S.B. Kamalanathan, Adv. Mr. Sumit Singh Rawat, Adv. Mr. P.V. Harikrishnan, Adv. Mr. Karuppaiah Meyyappan, Adv. Mr. Raghunatha Sethupathy B, AOR Ms. Kanika Kalaiyarasan, Adv. Mr. Abhishek Kalaiyarasan, Adv.

Case Details: STATE BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE VERSUS B. RAMU | Criminal Appeal No. 000801 / 2024

Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 128

Click Here To Read/Download The Judgment