Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
BELA M. TRIVEDI, PRASANNA B. VARALE, JJ.
The State of Jharkhand – Appellant
Versus
Sunny Kumar @ Sunny Kumar Sao – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 538 of 2025 ( Arising out of SLP(Criminal) No. 1953 of 2024)
Decided On : 03-02-2025
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – Sections 18 and 37 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 439 [Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – Section 483] – Grant of bail – At present, respondent-accused is under arrest in connection with other offence punishable under NDPS Act, registered after present one – Having regard to submissions made by Counsel for parties and to nature of offence as also fact that respondent-accused has been arrested in a similar offence under NDPS Act, it is appropriate to set aside impugned order passed by High Court granting bail to respondent – Impugned order set aside. (Paras 4, 5 and 6)
Facts of the case:
Present appeal is directed against the impugned judgment and order dated 24.11.2022, passed by High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi in B.A.No. 9276 of 2022, whereby High Court had allowed application filed by respondent-accused seeking bail in connection with Case No. 231 of 2022, registered at Police Station- Sadar, District- Chatra, Jharkhand for the offence punishable under Section 18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.
Findings of Court:
Respondent-accused is directed to be taken into custody in connection with Case No. 231 of 2022, registered at Police Station-Sadar, District-Chatra, Jharkhand. However, Trial Court is directed to expedite trial and conclude the same in accordance with law, preferably within four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
Result : Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT
1. Leave granted.
2. The present appeal is directed against the impugned judgment and order dated 24.11.2022, passed by the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi in B.A. No. 9276 of 2022, whereby the High Court had allowed the said application filed by the respondent-accused seeking bail in connection with Case No. 231 of 2022, registered at Police StationSadar, District- Chatra, Jharkhand for the offence punishable under Section-18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (for short ‘the NDPS Act’).
3. It is sought to be submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant-State that after the release of the respondent-accused on bail, vide the impugned order dated 24.11.2022 passed by the High Court, the respondentaccused was involved in another case under the NDPS Act, and was also arrested for the same on 12.07.2023. He also submitted that the trial in respect of the present appeal, has already commenced and only three witnesses have remained to be examined.
4. However, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-accused submitted that the recovery of the alleged contraband was not of commercial quantity and it was only of an intermediate quantity, and therefore, the rigors of Section-37 would not be applicable to the instant case. She also submitted that the appellant-State has challenged the very order granting the respondentaccused bail, and it is not a case of cancellation of bail on the ground of breach of any of the bail conditions. She has conceded that at present, the respondent-accused is under arrest in connection with other offence punishable under the NDPS Act, registered after the present one.
5. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties and to the nature of the offence as also the fact that the respondent-accused has been arrested in a similar offence under the NDPS Act, we deem it appropriate to set aside the impugned order passed by the High Court.
6. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 24.11.2022, passed by the High Court of Jharkhand, is set aside. The respondent-accused is directed to be taken into custody in connection with Case No. 231 of 2022, registered at Police Station-Sadar, District-Chatra, Jharkhand. However, the Trial Court is directed to expedite the trial and conclude the same in accordance with law, preferably within four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
7. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed.
8. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand closed.
Grant of bail – An undeserving bail granted to a habitual drug offender can be cancelled.
The impugned order is unsustainable as it does not consider the statutory mandate of Section 37 of the NDPS Act.
Courts must explicitly record twin satisfaction under NDPS Act Section 37(1)(b)(ii) for bail in commercial quantity cases; non-recording is jurisdictional defect rendering order unsustainable, even c....
(1) Bail – Recording of satisfaction on twin conditions under Section 37 of NDPS Act is mandatory and not merely directory.(2) Constitutional right under Article 21 and special provision of law under....
The court established that the presence of prior drug-related offenses and the potential for reoffending are significant factors in determining bail eligibility under the NDPS Act, even when the quan....
The court emphasized that under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, bail can only be granted if there are reasonable grounds for believing the accused is not guilty and unlikely to commit further offences.
The court emphasized that under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, bail can only be granted if there are reasonable grounds to believe the accused is not guilty and unlikely to commit further offences.
The court emphasized that bail under the NDPS Act requires satisfaction of stringent conditions, particularly in cases involving commercial quantities of narcotics.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
