SATPAL SINGH versus THE STATE OF PUNJAB

Citation: [2018] 3 S.C.R. 739 · Decided: 27-03-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: KURIAN JOSEPH · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
739
SATPAL SINGH
v.
THE STATE OF PUNJAB
(Criminal Appeal No. 462 of 2018 etc.)
MARCH 27, 2018
[KURIAN JOSEPH, MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR
AND NAVIN SINHA, JJ.]
Bail:
Application seeking anticipatory bail – By appellant-accused
in FIR u/s. 22 and 29 of NDPS Act – On the ground of parity as the
two co-accused were granted anticipatory bail by a co-ordinate
Bench – High Court by an interim order directed the accused to
surrender before Police to join investigation – Pursuant to interim
order the accused (including the petitioner) surrendered before
Sessions Court and were released on regular bail – High Court by
final order rejecting the plea of parity and taking note of limitations
u/s. 37 of NDPS Act, dismissed the application of anticipatory bail
– On appeal, Supreme Court noticing that orders granting bail to
the co-accused were without taking into notice s. 37 of NDPS Act
was apparently wrong, directed the State to verify as to whether
any step was being taken against that order – State challenged the
order granting anticipatory bail to the co-accused – Held: High
Court rightly rejected the application seeking anticipatory bail of
appellant-accused – The order granting bail to the co-accused was
without reference to s. 37 of NDPS Act and hence not correct –
Sessions Court was also not correct in granting regular bail to  the
accused on the basis of interim order passed by the High Court and
without noticing the final order passed in respect of anticipatory
bail – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – ss. 438 and 439 –
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – s. 37.
Anticipatory bail vis-a-vis regular bail – Held: The
satisfaction of the Court for granting protection u/s. 438 Cr.P.C.
(anticipatory bail) is different from the one u/s. 439 Cr.P.C. (regular
bail) – Merely because an accused was under protection of
anticipatory bail does not entitle him automatically to regular bail
– Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – ss. 438 and 439.
[2018] 3 S.C.R. 739
   739
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
740
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 3 S.C.R.
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985:
s. 37 – Limitations under – For grant of bail – Held: The
stringent limitations on the discretion of Court to grant bail have
been consciously put in view of the seriousness of offences – These
limitations are in addition to those prescribed under Cr.P.C. or any
other law in force on the grant of bail – Bail.
Dismissing the appeal of the accused and allowing that of
the State, the Court
HELD : 1. High Court is perfectly right in its approach and
in declining the protection under Section 438 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973. Under Section 37 of Narcotic Drugs
and Psychotropic Substances Act, when a person is accused of an
offence punishable under Section 19 or 24 or 27A and also for
offences involving commercial quantity, he shall not be released
on bail unless the Public Prosecutor  has been given an
opportunity  to oppose the application for such release, and in
case a Public Prosecutor opposes the application, the court must
be satisfied that there are reasonable  grounds for believing that
the person is not guilty of the alleged offence and that he is not
likely to commit any offence while on bail. Materials on record
are to be seen and the antecedents of the accused is to be
examined to enter such a satisfaction. These limitations are in
addition to those prescribed under the Cr.P.C or any other law in
force on the grant of bail. In view of the seriousness of the offence,
the law makers have consciously put such stringent restrictions
on the discretion available to the court while considering
application for release of a person on bail. [Paras 2, 3 and 4]
[742-G-H; 743-E-G]
2. Pursuant to the order passed by the High Court, the
accused persons had surrendered before the Sessions Court and
they were released on regular bail by order dated 31.10.2017.
The Sessions Judge took note of the interim order passed by the
High Court. It did not take note of the final order passed by the
High Court.  The Court should have enquired as to whether the
matter had been finally disposed of, particularly after noticing
the interim order. The casual approach adopted by the Sessions
Judge has apparently led to the accused being released on regular
bail, on the basis of the interim order passed by the High Court.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
741
When the application for anticipatory bail was the subject matter
before the High Court, the accused had no 

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