The Supreme Court has reiterated that bail in NDPS cases cannot be granted unless there are reasonable grounds for believing that the person accused is not guilty of such an offence.
The division-bench of CJI N.V Ramana, Justice Krishna Murari, and Justice Hima Kohli in the case of Narcotics Control Bureau V. Mohit Aggarwal held that the length of the period of the custody or the fact that the charge- sheet has been filed and the trial has commenced are by themselves not considerations that can be treated as persuasive grounds for granting relief to the respondent under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.
Brief Facts of the Case
The factual matrix of the case is that the respondent was convicted under Sections 8/22 and 29 of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Act, 1985. The decision of the high court of Delhi in granting post-arrest bail to the respondent results in the present appeal before the supreme court of India by the appellant.
The learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the appellant contended that the high court has committed a grave error in granting bail to the respondent. The high court has clearly overlooked the fact that huge quantities of Narcotics drugs and injections were seized from the godown of the co-accused. It was further contended that this is a case of constructive/conscious possession of the contraband substances because the respondent was an active member of an organized gang that was involved in drug smuggling, and in light of the embargo imposed by Section 37 of the NDPS Act, the respondent shouldn't have been admitted to bail.
The learned Advocate on record appearing for the respondent contended that the respondent has not broken any of the terms and conditions of his bail, and the impugned order was made after the lawyers for the appellant-NCB and the respondent was given a hearing. He claimed to have no relation to the other co-accused individuals and that his name had come up during the co-accused testimony under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, which was partially recorded.
He supported his arguments by relying on the judgment titled, Tofan Singh Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, 2013 Latest Caselaw 728 SC in which it was held that- Any confessional statement made in accordance with Section 67 of the NDPS Act is not admissible during a criminal prosecution conducted in accordance with the said Act. arguing that the charge sheet had already been filed, the confessional remarks of the accused recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, and the lack of any other incriminating evidence meant that the respondent had been admitted to bail in accordance with the aforementioned judicial dicta.
Supreme Court's Observation
The court observed that the limitations established under clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 37 must be taken into consideration in addition to the restrictions imposed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Further, if the application is opposed under section (1) of section 37, then the court must be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the person accused is not guilty of such an offense. The court while explaining the expression ‘reasonable ground’ relied on the judgments titled, Customs, New Delhi Vs. Ahmadalieva Nodira, 2004 Latest Caselaw 156 SC and ‘STATE OF KERALA vs. RAJESH, 2020 Latest Caselaw 79 SC
The apex court thereafter, explained that the term "reasonable grounds" used in clause (b) of Sub-Section (1) of Section 37 would signify grounds for the Court to believe that the accused is not guilty of the alleged offense. It also means trustworthy and plausible. An additional factor that goes hand in hand with the aforementioned satisfaction is the likelihood that the accused won't conduct any crimes while out on bail.
The Apex Court was not convinced by the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respondent and held that the narrow parameters of bail available under Section 37 of the Act, have not been satisfied in the facts of the instant case. At this stage, it is not safe to conclude that the respondent has successfully demonstrated that there are reasonable grounds to believe that he is not guilty of the offense alleged against him, for him to have been admitted to bail.
Therefore, the high court’s order of releasing the respondent on post-arrest bail is hereby quashed and set aside.
CASE NAME- Narcotics Control Bureau V. Mohit Aggarwal
CITATION- CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 1001-1002 OF 2022DATED- July 19, 2022
CORAM- Hon’ble chief justice of India N.V Ramana, Justice Krishna Murari, and Justice Hima Kohli
Read Judgement @LatestLaws.com:
Share this Document :Picture Source :
