STATE BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE versus B. RAMU

Citation: [2024] 2 S.C.R. 357 · Decided: 12-02-2024 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

* Author
[2024] 2 S.C.R. 357 : 2024 INSC 114
State by the Inspector of Police 
v. 
B. Ramu
(Criminal Appeal No. 801 of 2024)
12 February 2024
[B.R. Gavai and Sandeep Mehta,* JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
In a case involving recovery of huge quantity of narcotic substance 
(232.5 kg of ganja), wherein the Respondent-accused was indicted 
as being the conspirator for procurement/supply of the ganja so 
recovered, High Court whether justified in granting anticipatory bail 
in connection with the FIR registered for the offences punishable 
u/ss.8(c), 20(b)(ii)(c) and 29(1), Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic 
Substances Act, 1985.
Headnotes
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – s.37 – 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.438 – Quantity of narcotic 
substance seized multiple times the commercial quantity – 
Anticipatory bail granted by High Court, satisfaction in terms 
of the rider contained in s.37 not recorded – Challenge to:
Held: For entertaining a prayer for bail in a case involving recovery 
of commercial quantity of narcotic drug or psychotropic substance, 
the Court would have to mandatorily record the satisfaction in terms 
of the rider contained in s.37, NDPS Act – In the event, the Public 
Prosecutor opposes the prayer for bail either regular or anticipatory, 
the Court would have to record a satisfaction that there are grounds 
for believing that the accused is not guilty of the offence alleged 
and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail – In 
the present case, High Court not only omitted to record any such 
satisfaction, but rather completely ignored the factum of recovery 
of narcotic substance (ganja), multiple times the commercial 
quantity – In case of recovery of such a huge quantity of narcotic 
substance, the Courts should be slow in granting even regular 
bail to the accused  what to talk of anticipatory bail more so when 
the accused is alleged to be having criminal antecedents – High 
358
[2024] 2 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
Court failed to consider that the accused had criminal antecedents 
and was already arraigned in two previous cases under the NDPS 
Act – Impugned order being cryptic and perverse on the face of 
the record is quashed and set aside. [Paras 9-12, 15]
List of Acts
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985; Code of 
Criminal Procedure, 1973.
List of Keywords
Huge quantity of narcotic substance; Ganja; Anticipatory bail; Bail; 
Recovery of commercial quantity of narcotic drug or psychotropic 
substance; Multiple times the commercial quantity; Criminal 
antecedents.
Case Arising From
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No.801 
of 2024
From the Judgment and Order dated 25.01.2022 of the High Court 
of Judicature at Madras in CRLOP No. 1067 of 2022
Appearances for Parties
V. Krishnamurthy, Sr. A.A.G., D.Kumanan, Mrs. Deepa. S, Sheikh 
F. Kalia, Veshal Tyagi, Advs. for the Appellant.
G.Sivabalamurugan, Selvaraj Mahendran, C.Adhikesavan, S.B. 
Kamalanathan, Sumit Singh Rawat, P.V. Harikrishnan, Karuppaiah 
Meyyappan, Raghunatha Sethupathy B, Ms. Kanika Kalaiyarasan, 
Abhishek Kalaiyarasan, Advs. for the Respondent.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Order
Mehta, J.
1.	
Heard.
2.	
This appeal is directed against the order dated 25.01.2022 passed 
by the learned Single Judge of the Madras High Court whereby, 
the application under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 
1973 preferred by the respondent-accused in connection with Crime 
[2024] 2 S.C.R. 
359
State by the Inspector of Police v. B. Ramu
No. 235 of 2021 registered at P.S. Erode Taluk, District-Erode was 
allowed and the respondent-accused was granted anticipatory bail 
in connection with the aforesaid FIR registered for the offences 
punishable under Sections 8(c), 20(b)(ii)(c) and 29(1) of the Narcotic 
Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter being 
referred to as ‘NDPS Act’).
3.	
On perusal of the case records, it becomes apparent that on search 
of the house of Brinda/A1 and Kesavan/A2, both were found to be 
in possession of 232.5 kg of ganja. The respondent-accused herein 
was indicted as being the conspirator for procurement/supply of the 
ganja so recovered. 
4.	
As per the schedule to the NDPS Act, the commercial quantity 
of ganja is 20kg. It is thus not in dispute that the quantity of the 
narcotic substance seized in this case is well above commercial 
quantity.
5.	
The learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State in th
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.