GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Divyesh A. Joshi, J.
Pragnesh Pravinbhai Thummar – Applicant
versus
State of Gujarat – Respondent
R/Criminal Misc. Application (For Regular Bail - After Chargesheet) No.348 of 2025
Decided on 4.2.2025

Headnote:

Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – Section 438 – Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – Sections 8(C), 22(C) and 29 – Bail – Rejection of – Larger drug trafficking case – Thus, the term “reasonable grounds” is not capable of any rigid definition, but its meaning and scope will be determined based on the surrounding facts and circumstances of each case. Thus, what may be reasonable in one set of facts may not be reasonable in another set of facts. However, the standard of satisfaction in such cases is more than mere satisfaction on a prima facie opinion. Thus, the court before exercising its discretion for granting the bail must record the reasonable grounds before granting bail to the accused.

Held: Thus, the court must be conscious about the mischief that is sought to be curbed by the Act and the consequences that might ensue if the person accused of the offence under the Act is released on bail. The court ought to be satisfied on the basis of reasonable grounds discernible from the facts and circumstances that the Petitioner is not guilty of offences that the accused is charged with. Additionally, the court also needs to be satisfied that the person so released will not commit the offence while being on bail. Both the conditions are interlinked because the legislature intends that in cases where there is a possibility of commission of this grave offence under the Act, the person need not be released. It is so because if the person is released, he is most likely to repeat the offence, thus impacting the society at large. Thus, to not give any leeway to the accused, the court has to be satisfied about the dual conditions on reasonable grounds –In the instant case, the case of the applicant and his role in the entire sequence of events is not as simple as has been projected during the entire course of arguments by learned counsel for the applicant. He is not merely arrested for the small quantity of contraband but has been implicated for his role as being a part of a larger drug trafficking. Here, in the present case, the applicant is charged for commercial quantity weighing 1011.82 grams of Mephedrone and, therefore, his bail application needs to be decided as per Section 37 of the Act. As per the materials available on record, the applicant-accused is the main manufacturer of the Mephedrone drugs, who was manufacturing the contraband drugs and then supplying it in the market through different persons. All requisite procedures had also been followed as per the law and, thereafter, the accused persons came to be arrested. At the time of granting bail, the court has to consider the role played by the applicant-accused in the commission of the offence as well as gravity of offence and in the present case, considering the role played by the applicant in the offence, as the act of the applicant would effect to the youth of the nation, thus, the present application is required to be rejected – On facts, bail rejected.

In view of the gravity of the consequences of drug trafficking, the offences under the NDPS Act have been made cognizable and non-bailable. The Section does not allow granting bail for offences punishable under Section 19 or Section 24 or Section 27A and for offences involving commercial quantity unless the two-fold conditions prescribed under the Section have been met. The conditions include: –

a) hearing the Public Prosecutor; and

b) Satisfaction of the court based on reasonable grounds that the accused is not guilty of the offence and that he is likely to not commit an offence of a similar nature.

The fetters on the power to grant bail does not end here, they are over and above the consideration of relevant factors that must be done while considering the question of granting bail. The court also needs to be satisfied before grant of bail about the scheme of Section 483 of the Code. Thus, it is evident that the present section limits the discretion of the court in matters of bail by placing certain additional factors over and above, what has been prescribed under the Code.

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 deadly impact on the society; they are a hazard to the society; even if they are released temporarily, in all probability, they would continue their nefarious activities of trafficking and/or dealing in intoxicants clandestinely. Reason may be large stake and illegal profit involved.

Thus, what is evident from the above is that the offences prescribed under the Act are not only a menace to a particular individual but to the entire society especially, the youth of the country. Such offences have a cascading effect and are in vogue these days, thus destroying the capabilities and lives of a substantial chunk of the population and trend has been growing over the years. Thus, to prevent the devastating impact on the people of the nation, Parliament in its wisdom deemed it fit to introduce stringent conditions for grant of bail under the Act. The Court must stay mindful of the legislative intent and mandate of the Act while considering the question bail in such matters.

As far as condition under Section 37(b)(i) is concerned, there is no ambiguity in its interpretation. It gives effect to the doctrine of audi alteram partem. Since the crime is an act against the society, the legislature has contemplated that the Public Prosecutor must be given an opportunity to oppose a bail application under the Act. Additionally, under Section 37(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act, the court is not required to be merely satisfied about the dual conditions i.e., prima facie opinion of the innocence of the accused and that the accused will not commit a similar offence while on bail, but the court must have “reasonable grounds” for such satisfaction. [Paras 10 to 20].

Result: Bail rejected.