LCI Learning

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

  • Supreme Court set aside the bail granted to two accused in the NDPS case.
  • A bench comprising CJI UU Lalit and Justice Bela M Trivedi held that in the face of the mandatory Section 37 of the NDPS Act, the High Court cannot and ought not to release the accused on bail.
  • The bench observed, "In the face of the mandate of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, the High Court could not and ought not to have released the accused on bail."
  • According to the prosecution, around 13kgs of morphine was found in Md Jakir Hussain’s car. In a statement given by him under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, named his owner Abdul Hai as the accused. During the investigation, the contraband material in question was found to be handed over to accused Khalil Uddin, owner of a tea stall.
  • The High Court of Gauhati granted bail to Abdul Hai and Khalil Uddin and the State aggrieved by this act approached the Supreme Court.
  • The Apex Court upon hearing the appeal noted the validity and scope of statements under Section 67 citing the cases of Tofan Singh vs. State of Tamil Nadu and State by (NCB) Bengaluru vs. Pallulabid Ahmad Arimutta & Anr.
  • The decision of the stance of law in the Tifan Singh case was held applicable even during the grant of bail.
  • The Court observed that in light of the facts of the case, the magnitude of the statement, though alleged to have been retracted later by Nizam Uddin, has a different footing. The High Court should not have released the accused on bail on the mandate of Section 37 of the NDPS Act.
  • It read as, "However, going by the circumstances on record, at this stage, on the strength of the statement of Md. Nizam Uddin, though allegedly retracted later, the matter stands on a different footing. In our considered view, in the face of the mandate of Section 37 of the Act, the High Court could not and ought not to have released the accused on bail."
  • The High Court order was set aside and the Trial Court was directed to conclude proceedings within 6months from receipt of the order.
"Loved reading this piece by Arundhathi?
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"




Tags :

  Views  94  Report



Comments
img