1. Bail applications granted by the High Court in matters arising from the same FIR under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act. (Para 2 , 3 )
Back
Next 
2022 Supreme(SC) 1905
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
D.Y. Chandrachud, Sanjiv Khanna, Surya Kant, JJ.
Union of India – Appellant
Versus
Jitendra Giri – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No 647 of 2022; (Arising Out of SLP (Crl) No 1164 of 2022) with Criminal Appeal No 648 of 2022; (Arising Out of SLP (Crl) No 3439 of 2022)
Decided On : 19-04-2022
Advocates Appeared:
Ms. Sairica Raju, Advocate, Mr. Raghvendra Shukla, Advocate, Mr. Ritwiz Rishabh, Advocate, Mr. Adit Khorana, Advocate, Ms. Deepabali Dutta, Advocate and Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, Advocate, for the Appellant.
Ms. Sairica Raju, Advocate, Mr. Raghvendra Shukla, Advocate, Mr. Ritwiz Rishabh, Advocate, Mr. Adit Khorana, Advocate, Ms. Deepabali Dutta, Advocate and Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, Advocate, for the Appellant.
The impugned order is unsustainable as it does not consider the statutory mandate of Section 37 of the NDPS Act.
Headnote:
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act 1985 - Section 37 - The court found that the impugned order of the High Court of Jharkhand did not consider the statutory mandate of Section 37 of the NDPS Act. The court set aside the impugned order and directed the respondents to surrender within seven days. The bail applications are restored to the file of the High Court for fresh decision without being influenced by the impugned order. The court did not express any opinion on the merits of the bail applications.
Fact of the Case:
The court sets aside the impugned order of the High Court of Jharkhand and directs the respondents to surrender within seven days. If they fail to do so, the Investigating Officer will take necessary steps to detain and arrest them. The bail applications are restored to the file of the High Court for fresh decision without being influenced by the impugned order. The court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the bail applications.
Finding of the Court:
The impugned order is unsustainable as it does not consider the statutory mandate of Section 37 of the NDPS Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court sets aside the impugned order and directs the respondents to surrender within seven days. The bail applications are restored to the file of the High Court for fresh decision without being influenced by the impugned order.
Result: The appeals are allowed in the above terms. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether the High Court erred in granting bail without considering the statutory mandate of Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act. (Para 2 , 3 )
3. The High Court allowed bail applications without adverting to the mandatory provisions of Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act. (Para 2 , 3 )
4. Bail orders are unsustainable if they fail to consider the statutory mandate of Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act. (Para 2 , 3 )
5. High Court bail orders set aside; respondents directed to surrender; bail applications restored to High Court for fresh decision. (Para 5 )
6. What is the legal consequence of granting bail under the NDPS Act without considering Section 37?
Such an order is unsustainable as it fails to comply with the statutory mandate of Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. (Para 2 , 3 )
7. What is the procedure for bail applications after a bail order is set aside for non-compliance with Section 37 of the NDPS Act?
The bail application is restored to the High Court for a fresh decision in accordance with the law, typically after the respondent surrenders. (Para 2 , 5 )
8. Does the setting aside of a bail order for failure to consider Section 37 of the NDPS Act reflect the court's view on the merits of the case?
No, the court clarifies that setting aside the order for failure to consider statutory mandates does not constitute an expression of opinion on the merits of the bail applications. (Para 2 , 5 )
ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2. Arising out of the same FIR, Criminal Appeal No 46 of 2022 was allowed by an order dated 7 January 2022 passed by this Court [Narcotics Control Bureau vs Ajeet Kumar Yadav]. The order of the Court is reproduced below for convenience of reference:
'Leave granted.
We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
The impugned order is unsustainable as does not take into consideration the statutory mandate of Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, Act 1985 (for short, 'NDPS Act').
In view of the aforesaid position, the impugned order is set aside and the respondent is directed to surrender within a period of seven days. If the respondent does not surrender within the aforesaid time, the investigation officer would take immediate and necessary steps to detain and arrest the respondent.
We also restore B.A. No. 3081 of 2021 to the file of the High Court with a direction to decide the bail application afresh in accordance with law and without being influenced by the impugned order. We clarify that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits. It will be open to the respondent to move an application for early listing of bail application after the respondent surrenders.
The appeal is partly allowed, setting aside the impugned order on the aforesaid terms with direction of a fresh decision.
All pending applications stand disposed of.'
3. The Single Judge of the High Court of Jharkhand has allowed the applications for bail without even adverting to the provisions of Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act 1985.
4. The Office Report indicates that the respondents have been served.
5. Following the directions which were issued on 7 January 2022 in Criminal Appeal No 46 of 2022, we pass the following order:
(i) The impugned orders of the High Court of Jharkhand dated 26 July 2021 in Bail Application No 6238 of 2021 and 23 June 2021 in Bail Application No 4881 of 2021 are set aside;
(ii) The respondents are directed to surrender within a period of seven days and, if they fail to do so within the stipulated period, the Investigating Officer would take immediate and necessary steps to detain and arrest the respondents;
(iii) Bail Application Nos 6238 of 2021 and 4881 of 2021 are restored to the file of the High Court with a direction to decide the applications afresh without being influenced by the impugned order; and
(iv) This Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the bail applications and it will be open to the respondents to move an application for early listing after they surrender.
6 The appeals are allowed in the above terms.
7 Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
