Cause Title:
State of Kerala Etc. Vs. Rajesh Etc.
Date Of Judgement:
24 January 2020
Judge(s):
Justice Indu Malhotra
Justice Ajay Rastogi
Parties:
Appellant(s) -State of Kerala Etc.
Respondent(s) -Rajesh Etc.
SUBJECT
The appellant had challenged the High Court of Kerala's discretion in granting post-arrest bail to the accused-respondents without taking into account the mandate of Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and in rejecting the appellant's application to recall the order of post-arrest bail.
IMPORTANT PROVISION
The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter as The NDPS Act)
Section 37: Offences to be cognizable and non-bailable
The Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter as The Cr.P.C.)
Section 439: Special powers of High Court or Court of Session regarding bail.
OVERVIEW
- The accused(s) were found in possession of 10.202 kgs of hashish oil and Rs. 13,50,000/ in cash.
- All of the accused were detained and the hashish oil, money, and cars used to transport the oil were seized.
- The accused was charged with offenses punishable under the NDPS Act.
- On an application for post¬arrest bail submitted by the accused, the learned Additional Sessions Judge denied, which was thereafter contested by the accused respondent filing a bail application in the High Court.
- The High Court granted him post¬arrest bail without even considering Section 37 of the NDPS Act.
ISSUE
- Whether the Kerala High Court erred in granting bail to the accused-respondents under the NDPS Act.
ARGUMENT ADVANCED BY THE APPELLANT
- It was argued that the High Court erred in exercising discretion in favor of the accused respondents by giving them post¬arrest bail without considering the mandate of Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act. It was further argued that, under Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act, the negation of bail was the rule and its grant was an exception.
- For bail to be granted, the Court must be convinced that there were reasonable grounds for believing that the accused was not guilty of the crimes for which he had been charged and that he was not likely to commit any crimes while on bail, based on the evidence presented before it.
ARGUMENT ADVANCED BY THE RESPONDENT
The learned senior counsel for the respondents supported the High Court's decision. It was stated that a charge sheet had been filed and that the matter had been set for charge framing. No further investigation was required of the respondents, and the learned Judge had imposed stringent conditions while granting post¬arrest bail to the respondents in the impugned judgment, which had not been misused or violated, and satisfaction had been recorded that the respondents deserved post¬arrest bail after affording a due opportunity of hearing and notice under Section 37 of the NDPS Act. Interference with the learned Judge's judgment in favor of the respondents was not warranted once the learned Judge had exercised his discretion based on the circumstances on record.
JUDGEMENT ANALYSIS
- The Court's ability to grant bail was limited by the restrictions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act. It can be granted if there were reasonable grounds to believe that the accused was not guilty of the crime and would not commit another crime while on bail. It is the legislature's mandate that must be obeyed. The Act's violations are cognizable and non¬bailable under Section 37.
- In Union of India v. Ram Samujh [(1999) 9 SCC 429] it was held that the design of Section 37 demonstrated the exercise of the power to grant bail was subjected not only to the constraints contained in Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. but also to the limitations imposed by Section 37. The operative part of the aforementioned section is in the negative form, requiring the expansion of bail for anyone suspected of committing an offense under the Act unless two conditions were met. The first criterion is that the prosecution be given an opportunity to object to the application, and the second is that the Court be satisfied that there were reasonable grounds to believe he was not guilty of such an offense. If either of these two conditions were not met, the ban on granting bail operates.
- The phrase "reasonable grounds" indicated more than just prima facie grounds. It considers substantial probable grounds to believe that the accused was not guilty of the alleged crime. The clause contemplated reasonable belief required the existence of evidence and circumstances sufficient in themselves to justify satisfaction that the accused was not guilty of the alleged offense.
CONCLUSION
The learned Single Judge had also prima facie recognized that an error had been made in granting bail to the accused respondents in the appellant's plea before the High Court. As a result, the appeals were allowed, and the High Court's order to release the respondents on bail was set aside. The accused respondents' bail bonds were revoked and were ordered to be taken into custody. The Trial Court was ordered to continue the case and accelerate it.
To know more about NDPS Act, click here.
Click here to download the original copy of the judgement
