Hon'ble MATHUR, J.—Arriving at the conclusion that the law laid down by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. Rattan Mallik alias Habul, reported in (2009) 2 SCC 624, is running contrary to its earlier judgment in Mansingh vs. Union of India, reported in (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:-

^^bl U;k;ky; ds le{k mijksä fookn fcUnq dh jks'kuh esa ;g iz'u mRiUugksrk gS fd tgka ;wfu;u vkWQ bf.M;k cuke jru ekfyd gcwy] 2009 ,-vkbZ-vkj- ,l-lh-MCY;w- 3648] esa /kkjk 37 ^^vf/kfu;e] 1985** ds fo'ks"k izko/kkuksa dks n`f"Vxr j[krs gq, vU; mPp U;k;ky; }kjk tekur izkFkZuk i= dks ohdkj djus ds vkns'k dks ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; ds nks ekuuh; U;k;kf/kifr dh ihB }kjk nknw bZykl rqylhnkl cuke LVsV vkWQ egjk’Vª] ¼2000½ 8 ,l-lh-lh- 437 % vkj-,y-MCY;w 2000¼3½ ,l-lh- 437 ij voyfEcr gksrs gq, yEcs le; ls vfHk;qä ds U;kf;d vfHkj{kk esa gksuk o fudV Hkfo"; esa vihy dh lquokbZ dh laHkkouk ugha gksus ds vk/kkj dks U;k;ksfpr vk/kkj ugha ekurs gq, ltk LFkxu vkns'k fujLr fd;k x;k gS]mlh fu.kZ; esa ekuflag cuke ;wfu;u vkWQ bf.M;k] ¼2004½ 13 ,l-lh-lh- dk gokyk ugha gksus ds ckotwn ml fu.kZ; dks ftl m)j.k ds vk/kkj ij ikfjr fd;k x;k gS ,oa ml m)j.k dh O;k[;k ds vuqlkj i'pkr~orhZ fu.kZ; ;wfu;u vkWQ bf.M;k cuke jru ekfyd gcwy] 2009 ,-vkbZ-vkj- ,l-lh-MCY;w- 3648 ds vk/kkj ij lEcfU/kr izkFkhZ@vfHk;qä dks tekur dh lqfo/kk iznku fd;k tkuk mfpr ugha ekuk x;k gs] rnqijkUr vf/koäk izkFkhZ dh vksj ls ,dy ihB nkf.Md fofo/k NBka ltk LFkxu izkFkZuk i= la[;k 28@2013 ¼euQwy flag cuke jktLFkku jkT;½ esa ikfjr vkns'k fnukafdr 07-02-2013 ,oa ,dy ihB nkf.Md fofo/k ltk LFkxu izkFkZuk i= la[;k 28@2001 ¼Jh papy flag oxS- cuke dsUnzh; Lokid C;wjks½ esa ikfjr ltk LFkxu vkns'k dh jks'kuh esa o ;wfu;u vkWQ bf.M;k cuke jru ekfyd gcwy] 2009 ,-vkbZ-vkj- ,l-lh-MCY;w- 3648 esa izfrikfnr fl)kUrksa ds rgr ltk LFkxu izkFkZuk i= Lohdkj dj vfHk;qä dks tekur dk ykHk fn;k tk ldrk gS ;k ugha] ;g ,d egRoiw.kZ fcUnw ^^Lokid vkS"kf/k ,oa eu%izHkkoh inkFkZ vf/kfu;e] 1985** dh /kkjk 37 dh jks'kuh esa ¼okf.kfT;d ek=k ls lEcfU/kr izdj.kksa esa½ fdl m)j.k esa izfrikfnr fl)kUr ds vk/kkj ij vkns'k ikfjr fd;k tk;A bl Øe esa Li"V ekxZn'kZu dh izdj.k esa vko';drk gSA**

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 nonbailable.-(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.”

4. 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

Click Here to Read the rest of this document