STATE OF KERALA ETC. versus RAJESH ETC.

Citation: [2020] 3 S.C.R. 348 · Decided: 24-01-2020 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: INDU MALHOTRA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 4 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
348
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 3 S.C.R.
STATE OF KERALA ETC.
v.
RAJESH ETC.
(Criminal Appeal Nos. 154-157 of 2020)
JANUARY 24, 2020
[INDU MALHOTRA AND AJAY RASTOGI, JJ.]
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – s.37
& ss.2(viia), (xxiiia), 20(b)(ii)(c), 29 – Scheme of s.37 – In Crime
No.14/2018, accused persons (A1 to A3) were found in joint
possession of 10.202 kgs of hashish oil and currency notes worth
Rs. 13,50,000/- – Allegation against the accused respondent-A5
was that he entrusted hashish oil to A1 through A-2 for sale in
international market – Additional Sessions Judge rejected A5’s
application for post-arrest bail – Granted by High Court – Further,
in Crime No.19/2018, case of prosecution is that accused respondent-
A1 (who is A5 in Crime No.14/2018) along with two other persons
including A3 were found to be in possession of 1.800 kg of hashish
oil – Post -arrest bail of both the accused was dismissed by Sessions
Judge – Granted by High Court – On appeal, held: Hashish oil is
shown at Sl. No. 13 in notification dtd. 19.10.01 issued by Central
Government in exercise of power u/s.2(viia) & (xxiiia), NDPS Act –
Hashish oil above 1 kg is commercial quantity – Jurisdiction of
Court to grant bail is circumscribed by provisions of s.37, NDPS
Act – Scheme of s.37 reveals that the exercise of power to grant bail
is not only subject to the limitations contained u/s.439, CrPC, but is
also subject to the limitation placed by s.37 which commences with
non-obstante clause – Operative part of the said section is in the
negative form prescribing the enlargement of bail to any person
accused of commission of an offence under the Act, unless twin
conditions are satisfied – First condition is that the prosecution
must be given an opportunity to oppose the application; and the
second, is that the Court must be satisfied that there are reasonable
grounds for believing that person accused is not guilty of such
offence – High Court completely overlooked the underlying object
of s.37 that in addition to the limitations provided under the CrPC,
or any other law for the time being in force, regulating the grant of
[2020] 3 S.C.R. 348
348
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
349
bail, its liberal approach in the matter of bail under the NDPS Act
is indeed uncalled for – Single Judge failed to record a finding
mandated u/s.37, NDPS Act, a sine qua non for granting bail to the
accused under NDPS Act – Further, the consideration that prevailed
upon the Court to grant bail to the other accused persons (in Crime
No.14/2018) will not absolve the act of the accused respondent-A5
from the rigour of s.37, NDPS Act – Impugned order passed by the
High Court releasing the respondents on bail is set aside – Code of
Criminal Procedure – s.482.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: Hashish oil is shown at Sl. No. 13 in the notification
dated 19th October, 2001 issued by the Central Government in
exercise of power under Section 2(viia) and (xxiiia) of the NDPS
Act. Hashish oil above 1 kg is commercial quantity. The
jurisdiction of the Court to grant bail is circumscribed by the
provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act. It can be granted in
case there are reasonable grounds for believing that accused is
not guilty of such offence, and that he is not likely to commit any
offence while on bail. It is the mandate of the legislature which is
required to be followed. [Paras 17, 18][354-D-E]
Union of India v. Ram Samujh and Ors. 1999 (9) SCC
429 : [1999] 2 Suppl. SCR 76 – relied on.
Satpal Singh v. State of Punjab (2018) 13 SCC 813 :
[2018] 3 SCR 739 – referred to.
1.2 The scheme of Section 37 reveals that the exercise of
power to grant bail is not only subject to the limitations contained
under Section 439 of the CrPC, but is also subject to the limitation
placed by Section 37 which commences with non-obstante clause.
The operative part of the said section is in the negative form
prescribing the enlargement of bail to any person accused of
commission of an offence under the Act, unless twin conditions
are satisfied. The first condition is that the prosecution must be
given an opportunity to oppose the application; and the second,
is that the Court must be satisfied that there are reasonable
grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence. If either
of these two conditions is not satisfied, the ban for granting bail
STATE OF KERALA ETC. v. RAJESH ETC.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
350
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 3 S.C.R.
operates. The Single Judg

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