SC: Mere passage of time during appeal pendency is not a ground for suspension of sentence/ grant of bail in view of Sec. 37 NDPS Act [Read Order]

The Appellant herein approached the Apex Court for seeking grant of bail. He was convicted under Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 [NDPS Act] and was in custody for eight years.

The case of the Appellant was that despite direction given by the Supreme Court for treating his case on priority, the case was not reached for hearing while Mr. S.V. Raju, Additional Solicitor General appearing for the respondent contended that the fact that a large period having already been served during the pendency of the appeal cannot be a ground to suspend the sentence and grant bail to the Accused in view of stringent provisions provided under section 37, NDPS Act.

Section 37 places a bar on the Courts to grant bail to a person accused of committing offences mentioned under sections 19, 24 and 27 A and offences including criminal quantity, unless the Public Prosecutor is given an opportunity to be heard and the Court is satisfied that the accused is not guilty and on being released on bail- will not commit any offence.

The learned ASG also placed reliance on SC judgment in Union of India v. Rattan Mallik @ Habul - referred to support these contentions.

Reasoning and Decision of the Court:

With respect to the mandate of Section 37, it was observed by the Court that: “undoubtedly Sec. 37 rigor have to be met before a Convict’s sentence is suspended and bail granted and mere passage of time could not be a reason for the same”

Thus, it was held by the Court that mere passage of time during pendency of Appeal cannot surpass the requirements given u/s 37 for suspension of sentence or grant of bail.

However, having stated so, the Court decided to grant bail to the Accused due to “unprecedented” situation posed by COVID-19 and in view of the fact that the Court has released many persons on bail in order to de- congest jails.

At the request of the learned ASG, the Court also clarified that this order was passed keeping in view the facts of the case and it should not be treated as a precedent.

Read Order@LatestLaws.com