V.D. Gyani, J. -- 1. This and other connected petitions for bail raise and involve a common question of law as regards the scope and amplitude of section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psycotropic Substances Act, 1985 (as amended by Amendment Act No.2 of 1989) for short hereinafter referred to as the Act.

2. Learned counsels on both sides, who include Sarvashri B.S. Oberai, Joshi and Tiwari for the applicants seeking bail and Shri Khan for the Department of Narcotics and Shri Desai, for the State have forcefully presented their view points. Both agree and rightly so, at this stage, that the factual allegations as made cannot be disputed, yet Shri Oberai maintained that such procedural lapses on the part of the investigating agency, which would ultimately be materially affecting the prosecution case, would be one such circumstance, which should be taken into consideration by the Court, while reaching the satisfaction that there are reasonable grounds for believing that accused is not guilty of the offence charged or levelled against him.

3. Shri Joshi advanced yet another argument, a charge-sheet filed by the officers of the Narcotics Deptt. being a complaint, the allegations made therein, are yet to be inquired into for deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding? Thus relegating the case to the stage of inquiry u/s. 202 CrPC. This argument is based on want of proper and required notifications u/s. 53 of the Act.

4. Shri Khan, has placed the Notification dated 4.2.1988 to counter the argument advanced by Shri Joshi, Shri Tiwari who appears for one of the applicants, has also taken the same stand as Shri Oberai.

5. The controversy associated with these petitions, as emphatically and briskly argued by Shri Oberai, is not merely legal in nature but constitutional as well. A significant departure has been made from the age old, times honoured cardinal rule of criminal jurisprudence of an offender is preserved to be innocent unless he is found to be guilty by a competent Court.

6. Shri Khan, for the Deptt. and Shri Desai, for the State, joining him, have urged that the law has enacted to preserve the society and the social well being order. It is primarily concerned with deferring crime not with finely adjusting individual rights when it comes to general good. They also incidentally referred to the object of amendment to section 37 of the Act.

7. I, first think proper to deal with the provision of law, as it stands, on its plain reading and see, if it is necessary at all to go into the wider issues as raised by the learned counsel.

8. Section 37 of the Act reads as follows:-

"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 and (b) no person accused of an offence punishable for a term of imprisonment of five years or more under this Act shall be released on ball 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."

9. The question of one of approach to this section, which not only concerns but also affects personal liberty of a citizen. It is well settled by now that a provision which curtails personal liberty should be most strictly construed in favour of the subject and the safeguards provided for protection of citizens liberty must be liberally interpreted and applied, (see Rameshwar Shaw v. District Magistrate - AIR