1. Narcotics trafficking — Commercial quantity — Alleged kingpin — Bail application under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act. (Para 3 , 4 , 8 , 11 )
Back
Next 
2023 Supreme(SC) 285
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, PANKAJ MITHAL, JJ.
Union of India – Appellant
Versus
Ajay Kumar Singh @ Pappu – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 952 of 2023, SLP (Crl.) No. 2351 of 2023
Decided On : 28-03-2023
Important Points
IMPORTANT POINT
No person accused of offence involving trade in commercial quantity of narcotics is liable to be released on bail unless court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence.
No person accused of offence involving trade in commercial quantity of narcotics is liable to be released on bail unless court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence.
Subject
Bail - Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act
Act Referred
Headnote
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – Section 37 read with Sections 8/20/27-A/29/32 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Sections 437(5) and 439(2) – Grant of bail – Challenge as to – Seizure of huge quantity of Ganja – Facts as unfurled from complaint/FIR and statements of co-accused persons recorded under Section 67 of NDPS Act reveal that respondent-accused is kingpin and organiser of illicit trade in ganja – It is on record that respondent-accused has been involved in similar crimes in past and several cases are pending against him – As such, grant of bail to driver of vehicle and helper, does not seem to be a good and sufficient reason for granting bail to respondent-accused – Respondent-accused is the main person in drug trafficking and was involved in illegal transactions – Role of respondent-accused is clearly different from that of driver and helper – High Court was not justified in releasing him on bail – No person accused of offence involving trade in commercial quantity of narcotics is liable to be released on bail unless court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail – High Court manifestly erred in enlarging respondent-accused on bail – Order passed by High Court set aside. (Paras 11, 12, 13, 16, 17 and 18)
Facts of the case:
Appellant-Union of India has preferred this appeal against final judgment and order dated 17.10.2022 passed by the High Court of judicature at Allahabad, allowing Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 21330 of 2022 and directing for the release of respondent-accused on bail. Respondent-accused is alleged to be involved in Case No.687/2021 arising out of Case No.1/2021 under Sections 8/20/27-A/29/32 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.
Findings of Court:
In view of facts and circumstances and considering the role assigned to respondent-accused and illegality committed in releasing him on bail, we set aside impugned final order dated 17.10.2022 passed by the High Court of judicature at Allahabad and allow the appeal.
Result : Appeal allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Mukesh Kumar Maroria, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Divyesh Pratap Singh, AOR Mr. Vikram Pratap Singh, Adv. Ms. Shivangi Singh, Adv. Ms. Ishita Bedi, Adv. Mr. Ajay Prabu, Adv. Ms. Ranjana Singh, Adv.
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Mukesh Kumar Maroria, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Divyesh Pratap Singh, AOR Mr. Vikram Pratap Singh, Adv. Ms. Shivangi Singh, Adv. Ms. Ishita Bedi, Adv. Mr. Ajay Prabu, Adv. Ms. Ranjana Singh, Adv.
Table of Contents
2. Grant of bail based on parity with co-accused and Article 21 — Challenge based on the accused's role as mastermind and statutory bail restrictions. (Para 5 , 13 , 14 )
3. Distinction between mastermind and vicarious agents — Failure to satisfy mandatory twin conditions for bail in commercial quantity cases under Section 37, NDPS Act. (Para 13 , 14 , 17 )
4. Bail for commercial quantity offences under Section 37, NDPS Act, requires judicial satisfaction that the accused is not guilty and unlikely to re-offend. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 )
5. Impugned order granting bail set aside — Appeal allowed. (Para 18 , 19 )
6. Does the grant of bail to co-accused automatically entitle the main accused to bail?
No. If the role of the accused is distinct—such as being the mastermind while co-accused are merely vicarious agents—the grant of bail to the latter is not a sufficient reason for granting bail to the main accused. (Para 13 )
7. What are the mandatory conditions for granting bail in offences involving commercial quantities under the NDPS Act?
Under Section 37, bail cannot be granted unless the Public Prosecutor is given an opportunity to oppose the application and the court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe the accused is not guilty and is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 )
8. Is it necessary for the court to record its satisfaction regarding the twin conditions of Section 37 NDPS Act?
Yes. The court must record a finding that the accused is prima facie not guilty and not likely to commit the offence again; failure to record such satisfaction renders the grant of bail erroneous. (Para 17 )
JUDGMENT :
PANKAJ MITHAL, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. Heard Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, learned Additional Solicitor General, appearing for the Union of India and Mr. Divyesh Pratap Singh, learned Advocate-on-Record, appearing for the respondent.
3. The appellant-Union of India has preferred this appeal against the final judgment and order dated 17.10.2022 passed by the High Court of judicature at Allahabad, allowing Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 21330 of 2022 and directing for the release of the respondent-accused Ajay Kumar Singh @ Pappu on bail.
4. The respondent-accused is alleged to be involved in Case No. 687/2021 arising out of Case No. 1/2021 under Sections 8/20/27-A/29/32 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (in short ‘the NDPS Act’) Police Station-D.R.I. Varanasi.
5. The respondent-accused has been directed to be released on bail by the impugned order keeping in mind the larger mandate of Article 21 of the Constitution of India in the light of the decision of this Court passed on 11.07.2022 in Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Another, (2022) SCC online SC 825 [SLP (Crl.) No. 5191 of 2021], mainly for the reason that the main accused persons - Om Prakash Yadav and Amit Yadav have already been enlarged on bail.
6. Since the respondent-accused was in custody and had been directed to be released on bail, this Court on 13.02.2023 while issuing notice on the Special Leave Petition passed an interim order directing the suspension of the impugned order passed by the High Court.
7. It may be pertinent to note that the respondent-accused had not participated in the investigation and had avoided his arrest for more than one year whereupon he was arrested from a restaurant in Raipur.
8. The background facts in a nutshell are that the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) Varanasi on 11.01.2021 had information that a huge quantity of narcotics “ganja” is likely to be transported in a truck bearing registration no. AP-05-W-8699 from Bhadrachalam (Andhra Pradesh) to Jaunpur in U.P. via Varanasi. At around 6 pm on the said date, the aforesaid truck appeared, moving towards Prayagraj and was apprehended near Raja Talab. The person driving the truck introduced himself as Om Prakash Yadav, resident of district Ballia (U.P.). The other person in the truck introduced himself as Amit Yadav, helper (Khalashi). Initially, both of them denied the transportation of ganja and informed that the truck is loaded with cattle feed but upon search in the presence of the officers/panchas and the above two persons, 6 packets and 135 plastic sacks containing 1005 packets of varying size were recovered. Upon opening them, it was found that they contained dry green grey-coloured grassy substance which appeared to be ganja. The seized packets were weighed and their gross weight was found to be 3971.600 kg.
9. The driver of the vehicle Om Prakash Yadav revealed that he was driving the truck with the co-accused Amit Yadav as helper of one Bittu Dada of Jamshedpur and at the behest of Shri Ram Pravesh Yadav, resident of Ballia, he had gone to Jamshedpur where the acquaintance of respondent-accused gave him the truck which was loaded with ganja for safe delivery in lieu of Rs. 50,000/-. He further informed that the respondent-accused indulges in illicit trade of ganja.
10. Similar information was revealed by the helper Amit Yadav.
11. The information revealed by the above two accused persons indicated that both of them knew the respondent-accused and that they had connived with him to transport the illicit ganja and that they were in direct contact with the respondent-accused all through on his mobile number. The facts as unfurled from the complaint/FIR and the statements of the above two accused persons recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act reveals that respondent-accused is the kingpin and the organiser of the illicit trade in ganja.
12. It is on record that the respondent-accused has been involved in similar
