The Supreme Court refused to interfere with the Punjab and Haryana High Court's decision denying anticipatory bail to an accused booked under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, reiterating that such relief is rarely granted in NDPS cases.
A Bench comprising Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice KV Viswanathan observed that there was no error in the High Court’s ruling and refused to grant pre-arrest bail. The Court stated, “We are not satisfied that any error has been committed by the High Court in refusing anticipatory bail to the petitioner in the NDPS case.” However, the Bench permitted the petitioner to surrender before the Trial Court and pursue a regular bail application, which, it clarified, must be decided independently and in accordance with law.
According to the prosecution, the petitioner’s name emerged in the disclosure statements of co-accused individuals from whose possession 60 kilograms of Doda Post and 1.8 kilograms of opium were allegedly recovered. The co-accused identified the petitioner as the supplier of the contraband substances. The State resisted the bail application before the High Court, arguing that the seized material qualified as a commercial quantity, thereby invoking the bar under Section 37 of the NDPS Act. The State further contended that custodial interrogation was necessary to investigate the supply chain and modus operandi.
The petitioner, however, claimed false implication, asserting that he was not named in the original FIR and was being targeted solely based on the statements of others. The High Court, after examining the record, found that the petitioner had been specifically identified by the co-accused, and that there was corroborative material such as recorded phone conversations and banking transactions linking him to the accused. On this basis, the High Court rejected the anticipatory bail plea.
Dissatisfied with the outcome, the petitioner approached the Supreme Court. However, the apex court upheld the High Court’s view.
It is pertinent to note that the Apex Court had earlier, in September last year, expressed concern over the liberal grant of anticipatory bail in NDPS cases. A Bench comprising Justice B.R. Gavai (now Chief Justice of India), Justice Aravind Kumar, and Justice K.V. Viswanathan had then directed the State of West Bengal to consider filing for cancellation of such relief, underscoring that “grant of anticipatory bail in an NDPS matter is a very serious issue.”
In contrast, the Top Court had, in April this year, granted anticipatory bail in a different NDPS case where the accused was booked for possession of Tapentadol Hydrochloride tablets. Since the said substance was not listed in the Schedule to the NDPS Act, the Court held that it did not fall within the scope of a psychotropic substance under the statute.
Picture Source :