BABUA@ TAZMUL HOSSAIN versus THE STATE OF ORISSA

Citation: [2001] 1 S.C.R. 678 · Decided: 30-01-2001 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. RAJENDRA BABU · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
BABUA@ TAZMUL HOSSAIN 
v. 
THE STATE OF ORISSA 
JANUARY 30, 200 I 
B 
[S. RAJENDRA BABU AND K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, JJ.] 
Criminal Law: 
Narcotic Drugs and P;rchotropic Substances Act, 1985--Sections 20(b). 
C 21, 29, 3 7 (I )(b)-Petitioner arrested on ground that he worked for some one 
who was engaged in the business of comraband articles-Charge that he 
abetted the commission of offence or was a party to a criminal conspiracy 
to commit an offence of possessing and sale of ganja and other drugs-· 
Application for bail-.f'lea that none of the witnesses examined so ft1r had 
D implicated the petitioner in any mmmer-Tenability of-Held. unless there 
are reasonable ground~ for believing that the accused is not guilty of .mch 
offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail he will 
not be enlitled to bail-In the present case, it cannot be said that the accused 
is not guilty of the offence if the allegations made in the charge are 
established-In cases involving narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances, 
E it is in the interest of the Society to keep the accused behind bars during 
pendency of proceedings before Court as otherwise they would indulge in 
activities which are lethal to the Society. 
Practice & Procedure: 
F 
Trial-Conduct of--Accused persons involved in cases spreading through 
G 
two different States-Arrangement to have all the accused persons in one 
place fur purposes of trial-Need for directions issued 
One D was apprehended and 'ganja' seized from his possession. He 
disclosed before the arresting authority that he was working for one A who 
was in the business of contraband articles. On the basis of this disclosed 
house of A was searched and the contraband articles were seized. Later on, D 
made a statement that the petitioner also worked for A. Thereafter, the 
petitioner was also implicated in the case, arrested and trial proceeded against 
him. Bail application filed by petitioner on various grounds was rejected. 
H Hence the Present petition. 
678 
· .... --
··~ 
_......._ 
-;-
,._. 
-
1( 
. _ ___...,,... 
BABUA v. ST A TE OF ORI SSA 
679 
On behalf of he petitioner, it was contended that none of the witnesses 
examined so far had implicated the petitioner as an accomplice of A or 
implicated him in any manner. 
Dismissing the petition, the Court 
HELD : 1. In view of Section 37 (l)(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and 
Psychotropic Substances Act unless there are reasonable grounds for 
believing that the accused is not guilty of such offence and that he is not 
likely to commit any offence while on bail, alone will entitle him to bail. In 
the present case, the petitioner attempted to secure bail on various grounds 
but failed. But those reasons would be insignificant if the scope of Section 
37(l)(b) of the Act is borne in mind. At this stage of the case all that could be 
seen is whether the statements made on behalf of the prosecution witnesses, 
if believable, would result in conviction of the petitioner or not. At this juncture, 
it cannot be said that the accused is not guilty of the offence if the allegations 
made in the charge are established. The other aspect to be born in mind is 
that the liberty of a citizen has got to be balanced with the interest of the 
society. In cases where narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances are 
involved, the accused would indulge in activities which are lethal to the society. 
Therefore, it would certainly be in the interest of the society to keep such 
persons behind bars during the pendency of the proceedings before the Court. 
1681-D-GI 
2. In the present case, the accused persons having been involved in 
cases spreading through two different States, attempts should be made by the 
State Governments to see that the trial in the cases pending before them are 
facilitated by making appropriate arrangement to have all the accused persons 
in one place for purposes of trial. Details should be worked out and shall be 
examined by the concerned High Courts on the administrative side and 
appropriate directions be given in that regard to enable expeditious disposal 
of the case.1681-H; 682-A-CI 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Special Leave Petition 
(CRL.) No. 2866 of2000. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 20.4.2000 of the Orissa High Court 
in Crl. M.C. No. 487 of2000. 
Dr. Abhishek M. Singhvi, Vijay Hansaria, Sunil Kumar Jain, Amitesh Lal, 
Ms. Sushma Sharma and Jain Hansaria & Co. for the Petitioner. 
Kirti Renu Mishra and Ms. Ki

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.