Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(SC) 562

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K.M. JOSEPH, ARAVIND KUMAR, JJ.
Sebil Elanjimpally – Appellant
VERSUS
The State of Odisha – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1578 of 2023 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 3518 of 2023)
Decided On : 18-05-2023

Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Hitendra Nath Rath, AOR Dr. J. Prasangi, Adv. Mr. R. Sreeramulu, Adv. Mr. Rajiv Kapoor, Adv. Mr. Vikas Sinha, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Ms. Samapika Biswal, AOR

The non-surrender of a co-accused who has been released on bail cannot be a valid ground to reject another accused's bail application under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

Headnote:BAIL - NARCOTIC DRUGS AND PSYCHOTROPIC SUBSTANCES ACT, 1985 - Section 20(b)(ii)(C) - SUMMARY: The appellant's application for bail under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 was rejected by the court. The impugned order cited the non-surrender of a co-accused who had been released on bail as the reason for rejecting the appellant's bail application. However, the court held that this factor alone cannot be a valid reason to deny bail to the appellant. The court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned order, and directed the High Court to reconsider the matter and dispose of it expeditiously.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant had filed an application for bail which was rejected by the court. The appellant was charged with offenses under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. The impugned order was passed in the second bail application after a previous attempt at securing bail from the High Court had failed.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the sole reason for rejecting the appellant's bail application was that a co-accused who had been released on bail had not surrendered. However, the court held that this factor alone cannot be considered sufficient to deny bail to the appellant.
Issues:
Whether non-surrender of a co-accused who has been released on bail can be a valid ground to reject another accused's bail application?
Ratio Decidendi:
The fact that a co-accused who has been released on bail has not surrendered cannot be a relevant factor in deciding whether to grant or reject another accused's bail application.
Final Decision:
The appeal is allowed, and the impugned order is set aside. The High Court is directed to reconsider the appellant's bail application and dispose of it expeditiously, taking into account that charges have been framed and prosecution witnesses are proposed to be examined.

JUDGMENT

Leave granted.

2. The impugned order is one by which the application for bail filed by the appellant has been rejected.

3. The appellant has been charged for alleged commission of offences under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. The appellant has been in custody for two years and 11 months. The impugned order is the order passed in the second bail application. The earlier bail application came to be rejected on 07.07.2022. It is, in fact, pointed out by the learned counsel for the State that another attempt at securing bail from the High Court has failed.

4. As far as the impugned order goes, we notice that the following is the reasoning:

“Taking into account that the co-accused, who has since been released on bail has not surrendered, this Court is constrained not to entertain the bail application of the petitioner.”

5. Thereafter the Court proceeded to note the case of the appellant that his father has undergone surgery and the Court proceeded to direct expeditious disposal of the case.

6. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and also the learned counsel for the State as noted.

7. The impugned order shows that what has weighed with the Court is the fact that the co-accused who was released on bail has not surrendered. It is this factor alone which we can discern to be the reason to not entertain the bail application.

8. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that the fact that the co-accused who was released on bail has not surrendered cannot be a germane factor to decline bail to the co-accused, namely, the appellant.

9. In such circumstances, we are of the view that the matter must have reconsideration again at the hands of the High Court. The appeal is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. The High Court will take up BLAPL No. 6803/2022 and pass orders on the same in view of the fact that it is a case where the charges have been framed and 19 prosecution witnesses are proposed to be examined by the State.

10. We request the High Court to take up the application and dispose of the same at the earliest and if possible, preferably within a period of two months from the date of production of the copy of the order.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document