Back
2004(2) Supreme 456
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Bombay High Court)
Doraiswamy Raju & Arijit Pasayat, JJ.
Narcotics Control Bureau -Appellant
versus
Dilip Pralhad Namade -Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 349 of 2004
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 2783/2003)
Decided on 18-3-2004
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : L. Nageshwara Rao, Additional Solicitor General, Sanjay R. Hegde, Ms. Sushma Suri, Advocates.
For the Respondent : E.C. Agrawala, Mahesh Agarwal, Rishi Agrawal, Advocates.
Held : The limitations on granting of bail come in only when the question of granting bail arises on merits. Apart from the grant of opportunity to the public prosecutor, the other twin conditions which really have relevance so far the present accused-respondent is concerned, are (1) the satisfaction of the Court that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of the alleged offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. The conditions are cumulative and not alternative. The satisfaction contemplated regarding the accused being not guilty has to be based for reasonable grounds. The expression "reasonable grounds" means something more than prima facie grounds. It contemplates substantial probable causes for believing that the accused is not guilty of the alleged offence. The reasonable belief contemplated in the provision requires existence of such facts and circumstances as are sufficient in themselves to justify satisfaction that the accused is not guilty of the alleged offence and he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. This nature of embargo seems to have been envisaged keeping in view the deleterious nature of the offence, necessitates of public interest and the normal tendencies of the persons involved in such network to pursue their activities with greater vigour and make hay when, at large. In the case at hand the High Court seems to have completely overlooked the underlying object of Section 37 and transgressed the limitations statutorily imposed in allowing bail. It did not take note of the confessional statement recorded under Section 67 of the Act. A bare reading of the impugned judgment shows that the scope and ambit of Section 37 of the NDPS Act was not kept in view by the High Court. Mere non-compliance of the order passed for supply of copies, if any, cannot as in the instant case entitle an accused to get bail notwithstanding prohibitions contained in Section 37. (Paras 9 and 10)
(ii) PRECEDENT-Order passed in any SLP at threshold without detailed reasons does not constitute any declaration of law or constitute a binding precedent. (Para 12)
Key Points: - The court held that the satisfaction required for bail under NDPS Act Section 37 must be based on reasonable grounds that there is not guilty and that the accused is not likely to commit an offence, and these grounds must be more than prima facie (!) . - It stated that mere non-supply of copies of documents, especially when privilege and inspection were offered, cannot entitle the accused to bail; proper adherence to Section 37 limitations is required (!) (!) . - The Court emphasized that an order pass at threshold in an SLP without detailed reasons does not establish a binding legal principle or precedent; such orders cannot be treated as law declaring or binding (!) .
ORDER
Arijit Pasayat, J.-Leave granted.
Grant of bail to the respondent by a learned Single Judge of Bombay High Court is questioned by the Narcotics Control Bureau (in short the "NCB"). The respondent is facing trial for alleged commission of offences punishable under Section 29 read with Sections 8(c), 22, 28 and 30 of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short the `NDPS Act ). The allegations against the respondent Dilip Pralhad Namade (hereinafter referred to as `the accused ) were that he was involved in the manufacturing of mandrax tablets and he is the person who has supplied the technical know how of preparation for the tablets.
2. Officers of the appellant-Bureau, Mumbai Zonal Unit, got information that one Suresh Faturmal Jain was travelling in a red Ford Escort car and was carrying 20,000 Mandrax Tablets to be delivered to two persons at a particular place. Acting on the information, two officers of the Bureau went to the vicinity of the place where the tablets were to be delivered. Two persons were called to act as Panchas. They found that there were three persons travelling in the car. The officers searched the car and arrested all the three occupants. One of them were Suresh Futormal Jain and others were Karakutti Karan Anthony and Rajeev Shirook. From the bags, 20 Kgm. of Mandrax Tablets were recovered. Statement of all the three accused persons were recorded and on the basis of certain facts disclosed in the statements, a search was taken up by the Officers and 650 Kgs. of chemicals used for manufacturing Mandrax tablets were recovered. During the course of investigation, other persons were also searched and enquiries were made. The case against the respondent-accused was that he was instrumental in helping the other accused persons in setting up a plant and machinery for manufacture of Methaqualone Powder and Mandrax Tablets. With the help of others, the respondent alongwith accused No. 10 manufactured eleven lakhs Mandrax tablets on three occasions for other accused persons. He had also visited the factory of accused No. 13 for the purpose of procurement of the Mandrax Tableting Machineries etc.
3. A bail application was filed by the respondent-accused, which was rejected on 27.8.2001 by the Special Judge. Subsequently an application was filed on 21.6.2002 before the Special Judge for direction to the prosecuting agency to supply copies of certain documents purported to have been recovered from his house. The Special Judge directed the prosecution to furnish the copies.
4. Subsequently an application for bail was filed by the respondent-accused before the Bombay High Court on 27.8.2002. By the Impugned order dated 19.12.2002 the High Court granted bail to the respondent-accused primarily on the term that the direction given by the Special Judge for supply of copies of documents was not complied with, though the bail application was opposed.
5. In support of the appeal Mr. L. Nageshwara Rao, learned Additional Solicitor General submitted that while granting bail the provisions of Section 37 of the Act were not kept in view. There is a prohibition on the grant of bail in terms of Section 37 of the NDPS Act and only under the specified conditions bail can be granted. Non-supply of documents pursuant to the court s order is not one of the grounds on which bail can be granted. In fact the High Court recorded a wrong conclusion by observing that the order was not complied with and there was also no challenge to the order directing supply of documents. As a matter of fact claiming privilege the Bureau had filed an application before the Special Judge clearly indicating that it would not be in the interest of justice to grant copies, and prayer was made to the Court that instead of granting copies the accused, if he so desires, could inspect the documents in presence of officials of the Bureau. That offer was not accepted by the accused respondent. The Bureau wanted to avoid the possibility of any
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
