1. Appeal against High Court order granting bail in a case under Section 8/18 of the NDPS Act. (Para 2 )
Back
Next 
2000 Supreme(SC) 234
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
G.B.Pattanaik : U.C.Banerjee
Union Of India Through Central Bureau Of Narcotics Commissioner, Lucknow
Versus
Aharwa Deen
Case No. : 105 of 2000
Date of Decision : 1/31/00
Bail cannot be granted in proceedings under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act without strict adherence to the mandatory provisions and requirements set forth in Section 37 of the Act.
Headnote:(A) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Sections 8, 18 and 37 - Grant of bail - High Court granted bail to respondent in case under Section 8/18 of the Act - Order of High Court cannot be sustained as it failed to consider the mandatory provisions of Section 37 of the Act - High Court was in error in granting bail without focusing attention on the mandatory requirements of Section 37. (Paras 2 and 3)
Facts of the case:
An appeal was filed against an order of the High Court which had granted bail to the respondent in a case registered under Section 8/18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act.
Findings of Court:
The High Court was totally in error in granting bail without focusing its attention on the mandatory provision of Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act.
Issues: Whether the High Court's order granting bail was sustainable given the failure to consider the mandatory provisions of Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act.
Ratio Decidendi: Bail cannot be granted in cases under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act without adhering to the mandatory requirements stipulated under Section 37 of the Act.
Result: Appeal allowed, set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Challenge to bail order on the ground that the High Court failed to consider the mandatory provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act. (Para 2 )
3. High Court erred in granting bail without considering the mandatory provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act. (Para 2 , 3 )
4. Bail under the NDPS Act cannot be granted without adherence to the mandatory provisions of Section 37. (Para 3 )
5. Appeal allowed and the High Court order granting bail set aside. (Para 3 )
6. Is compliance with Section 37 of the NDPS Act mandatory for the grant of bail?
Yes, the court held that granting bail without focusing attention on the mandatory provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act is an error of law. (Para 3 )
(1) LEAVE granted.
(2) THE Union of India is in appeal against the order of the learned single Judge of the Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow, granting bail to the respondent in case under Section 8/18 NDPS Act. Pursuant to the notice issued, the respondent has entered appearance. A letter was circulated praying for adjournment to file a counter affidavit. But we see no justification for a counter affidavit being filed in a case in hand. Since on the face of the impugned order of the High Court granting bail cannot be sustained as the High Court has not looked into the provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act.
(3) HAVING heard the learned counsel for the parties and on examining the record of this case we have no hesitation to come to the conclusion that the High Court was totally in error in granting bail without even focussing its attention to the mandatory provision of Section 37 of the NDPS Act. In that view of the matter, we allow the appeal, set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court.
