IMPORTANT POINT
Applications preferred by an accused of the offences punishable under Sections 19, 24 and 27 A under the Act of 1985 and also for the offences involving commercial quantity of contraband for his release on bail or for suspension of sentence are required to be considered by the High Courts or the trial courts, as the case may be, by taking into consideration the provisions of Section 37 of the Act of 1985.

JUDGMENT

Govind Mathur, J. — Arriving at the conclusion that the law laid down by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Rattan Mallik alias Habul, (2009)2 SCC 624, is running contrary to its earlier judgment in Mansingh v. Union of India, (2004)13 SCC 42, a Single Bench of this Court has sought guidance from the Larger Bench as to which one principle of law from among the two cases aforesaid should be adhered while examining the application seeking release on bail/suspension of sentence in the matters where the conviction is recorded for the offence under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 1985”).

2. The discussions made by learned Single Bench while making reference to the Larger Bench read as under:-

[Matter in other Language]

3. Looking to the nature of the issue referred for adjudication, it shall be appropriate to quote the Section 37 of the Act of 1985 :-

“37. Offences to be cognizable and non-bailable.- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974)—

(a) every offence punishable under this Act shall be cognizable;

(b) no person accused of an offence punishable for offences under section 19 or section 24 of section 27 A and also for offences involving commercial quantity shall be released on bail or on his own bond unless—

(i) the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the application for such release, and

(ii) where the Public Prosecutor opposes the application, the 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.

(2) The limitations on granting of bail specified in clause (b) of sub-section(1) are in addition to the limitations under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) or any other law for the time being in force, on granting of bail.”

As per the provision aforesaid a court considering any application to release an accused of the offences punishable under section 19 or section 24 or section 27 A and also for offences involving commercial quantity of contraband cannot be released on bail without recording the satisfaction as desired under sub-clauses (1) and (2) of clause (b) of Section 37(1) of the Act of 1985.

4. Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of Dadu alias Tulsidas v. State of Maharashtra, (2000) 8 SCC 437: 2000(7) Supreme 38: 2000(4) Crimes 124. in detail examined the objects and scope of Section 37 referred above and held as under:-

“28. This Court in Union of India v. Ram Samujh held that the jurisdiction of the court to grant bail is circumscribed by the aforesaid section of the Act. The bail can be granted and sentence suspended in a case where there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of the offence for which he is convicted and he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail and during period of suspension of the sentence. The Court further held : (SCC pp.431- 32, paras 6-8)

“6. The aforesaid section is incorporated to achieve the object as mentioned in the Statement of Objects and Reasons for introducing Bill No.125 of 1988 thus :

‘Even though the major offences are non-bailable by virtue of the level of punishments, on technical grounds, drug offenders were being released on bail. In the light of certain difficulties faced in the enforcement of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, the need to amend the law to further strengthen it, has been felt.’

7. It is to be borne in mind that the aforesaid legislative mandate is required to be adhered to and followed. It should be borne in mind that in a murder case, the accused commits murder of one or two persons, while those persons who are dealing in narcotic drugs are instrumental in causing death or in inflicting death-blow to a number of innocent young victims, who are vulnerable; it causes deleterious effects and a d