- The Supreme Court noted that the phrase "reasonable grounds" used in Section 37(1)(b) of the NDPS Act meant credible, plausible grounds for the Court to believe that the accused person was not guilty of the alleged offence.
- The court also stated that, under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, bail cannot be granted solely on the basis that nothing was discovered in the accused's possession.
- The length of his confinement or the fact that the charge-sheet has been filed and the trial has begun are not persuasive grounds for granting relief to the respondent under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, a three-judge bench comprising CJI NV Ramana and Justices Krishna Murari and Hima Kohli ruled.
- In this case, the Delhi High Court granted bail to an accused who was facing trial for violating Sections 8/22 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.
- While granting bail, the High Court noted that there is no other evidence against the accused other than the confessional statement recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act.
- ASG Jayant K. Sud, who represented the Narcotics Control Bureau before the Supreme Court, contended that the instant case falls under the category of recovery of commercial quantity of narcotic drugs and that, in light of the embargo placed in Section 37 of the NDPS Act, the accused should not have been admitted to bail and that this is a case of constructive/conscious possession of the contraband substances because the accused was an active participant in an organised gang.
- After referring to Section 37 of the NDPS Act, the bench stated the following:
- When granting bail to a person accused of committing an offence under the NDPS Act, the Court's power is limited in certain ways.
- Not only must the limitations imposed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 be considered, but so must the restrictions imposed under clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 37.
- The conditions imposed in subsection (1) of Section 37 are that the Public Prosecutor be given an opportunity to oppose an accused person's application for release.
- The court also clarified that, in the context of Section 37 of the Act, the Court is not required to record a finding that the accused person is not guilty at the stage of examining an application for bail.
- The court noted that it was not the only evidence used by the NCB to oppose the bail application.
- The bench ruled that the facts of the case did not meet the narrow parameters of bail available under Section 37 of the Act.
"Loved reading this piece by Twinkle Madaan?
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"
