SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(SC) 719

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SUDHANSHU DHULIA, K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JJ.
Asim Mallik – Petitioner
VERSUS
The State of Odisha – Respondent
Special Leave Petition (Criminal) Diary No(s). 57403 of 2024
Decided On : 24-04-2025

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Shrey Kapoor, AOR Mr. Lalitendu Mohpatra, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Ms. Sharmila Upadhyay, AOR Mr. Sarvjit Pratap Singh, Adv.

IMPORTANT POINT
Interim bail – Either Court should grant regular bail or should refuse to grant bail – Granting interim bail should be an exception and should not be granted in a routine manner and repeatedly.

Headnote:

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 439 [Section 483 of BNSS, 2023] – Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – Section 37 – Interim bail – Though, it may be necessary in some cases to grant interim bail to take care of specific contingencies, but as a routine, interim bail should not be granted – Either Court should grant regular bail or should refuse to grant bail – Granting interim bail should be an exception and should not be granted in a routine manner and repeatedly – Petitioner directed to be released on bail forthwith on usual terms and conditions to be decided by concerned Court. (Paras 2, 3 and 4)

Facts of the case:

Petitioner is an accused for the offences punishable under Sections 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act. The High Court, vide impugned order dated 06.09.2024, has granted interim bail to the petitioner. He has already undergone about 03 years in jail.

Findings of Court:

Considering period of incarceration of petitioner and the entire facts and circumstances of this case, case of bail is made out for petitioner and prayer for bail is allowed.

Result : Bail Application allowed.

ORDER

Delay condoned.

2. The petitioner is an accused for the offences punishable under Sections 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act. The High Court, vide impugned order dated 06.09.2024, has granted interim bail to the petitioner. He has already undergone about 03 years in jail.

3. Considering the period of incarceration of the petitioner and the entire facts and circumstances of this case, we are of the opinion that a case of bail is made out for the petitioner and therefore, the prayer for bail is allowed.

4. Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to be released on bail forthwith on the usual terms and conditions to be decided by the concerned Court.

5. However, we have noticed in several such cases, which are coming to this Court challenging the orders passed by the Odisha High Court, that recurring interim bail is granted for the same applicant over and over again. Though, it may be necessary in some cases to grant interim bail to take care of specific contingencies, but as a routine, interim bail should not be granted. Either the Court should grant regular bail or should refuse to grant bail. Granting interim bail should be an exception, and should not be granted in a routine manner and repeatedly.

6. The present Special Leave Petition shall stand disposed of in the above terms along with pending application(s), if any.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top