Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(SC) 1562

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Indira Banerjee, V. Ramasubramanian, JJ.
The State of Haryana – Appellant
Versus
Samarth Kumar – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1005 of 2022 (Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No. 6575 of 2021 with Criminal Appeal No. 1006 of 2022 (Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No. 6683 of 2021)
Decided On : 20-07-2022

Advocates appeared:
Mr. Anil Kaushik, AAG,Mr. Rajat Rana, Advocate, Ms. Anju Kaushik, Advocate, Mr. Vishwa Pal Singh, Advocate, For the Appellant / Mr. Rishi Malhotra, Advocate, Dr. Sanjay Gupta, Advocate, Mr. Rajat Sharma, Advocate, Mr. Dinesh Verma, Advocate, Mr. Subhasish Bhowmick, Advocate, For the Respondent.

Granting anticipatory bail in cases under the NDPS Act, 1985, based solely on the absence of recovery from the respondents and their implication on the disclosure statement of the main accused is not warranted.

Headnote:
Anticipatory Bail - NDPS Act - The court found that the High Court erred in granting anticipatory bail to the respondents under the NDPS Act, 1985, based on the absence of recovery from the respondents and their implication solely on the disclosure statement of the main accused. The court held that granting anticipatory bail in such cases is not warranted and set aside the impugned orders.
Fact of the Case:

The appeals arose from orders granting pre-arrest bail to the respondents implicated for alleged offences under Sections 17, 27A, and 85 of the NDPS Act, 1985. The High Court granted bail based on the absence of recovery from the respondents and their implication solely on the disclosure statement of the main accused.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the High Court erred in granting anticipatory bail to the respondents and set aside the impugned orders, allowing the State to take steps in accordance with the law.
Issues: The issues involved the grant of anticipatory bail to the respondents, the reliance on the disclosure statement of the main accused, and the subsequent implications for the regular bail of the main accused.
Ratio Decidendi: Granting anticipatory bail in cases under the NDPS Act, 1985, based solely on the absence of recovery from the respondents and their implication on the disclosure statement of the main accused is not warranted.
Final Decision: The appeals were allowed, and the impugned orders were set aside, allowing the Appellant-State to take steps in accordance with the law.

Judgement Key Points

The laws applied in this case include:

The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 [NDPS Act] — This statute governs the prohibition, regulation, and control of operations relating to narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances, and prescribes the conditions under which offences are committed and punishable.
The provisions related to anticipatory bail under the Criminal Procedure Code — These provisions outline the circumstances and criteria under which an individual may be granted anticipatory bail to prevent arrest in anticipation of an accusation.
Principles of statutory interpretation and judicial discretion — These principles guide the court’s evaluation of the grounds for granting or denying anticipatory bail, especially in cases involving serious offences under the NDPS Act.
General legal principles concerning the burden of proof and the significance of evidence — This includes considerations regarding the absence of recovery and the reliance on disclosure statements, and how such factors influence the court’s decision-making process regarding bail.

Please note that specific case law references are not included as per your instructions.

ORDER

1. Leave granted.

2. Both these appeals arise out of independent orders passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh granting pre-arrest bail to the respondents herein who were implicated for alleged offences under Sections 17, 27A and 85 of the NDPS Act, 1985.

3. Heard learned Additional Advocate General for the State of Haryana and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.

4. The High Court decided to grant pre-arrest bail to the respondents on the only ground that no recovery was effected from the respondents and that they had been implicated only on the basis of the disclosure statement of the main accused Dinesh Kumar. Therefore, reliance was placed by the High Court in the majority judgment of this Court in Tofan Singh vs. State of Tamil Nadu reported in (2021) 4 SCC 1.

5. But, it is contended by the learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the State of Haryana that on the basis of the anticipatory bail granted to the respondents, the Special Court was constrained to grant regular bail even to the main accused-Dinesh Kumar and he jumped bail. Fortunately, the main accused-Dinesh Kumar has again been apprehended. According to the learned Additional Advocate General, the respondent in the second of these appeals is also a habitual offender.

6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent in the first of these Appeals contends that the State is guilty of suppression of the vital fact that the respondent was granted regular bail after the charge-sheet was filed and that therefore, nothing survives in the appeal. But, we do not agree.

7. The order of the Special Court granting regular bail to the respondents shows that the said order was passed in pursuance of the anticipatory bail granted by the High Court. Therefore, the same cannot be a ground to hold that the present appeals have become infructuous.

8. In cases of this nature, the respondents may be able to take advantage of the decision in To fan Singh vs. State of Tamil Nadu (supra). perhaps at the time of arguing the regular bail application or at the time of final hearing after conclusion of the trial.

9. To grant anticipatory bail in a case of this nature is not really warranted. Therefore, we are of the view that the High Court fell into an error in granting anticipatory bail to the respondents.

10. In view of the above, the appeals are allowed. The impugned orders are set-aside. As a consequence, the Appellant-State is entitled to take steps, in accordance with law.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document