STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH versus KAJAD

Citation: [2001] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 617 · Decided: 06-09-2001 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.B. SHAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

-
ST A TE OF MAD HY A PRADESH 
A 
v. 
KAJAD 
SEPTEMBER 6, 2001 
[M.B. SHAH AND R.P. SETHI, JJ.] 
B 
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 : 
Sec.37-Requirements before granting bail-Nature of-Held, 
mandatory-Limitations in granting bail-Jn addition to the limitation under C 
CrPC-Negation of bail is the rule and its grant an exception-Successive 
bail applications permissible under changed circumstances only else 
consideration of subsequent bail application amounts to reviewing earlier 
order-Not permissible under criminal law. 
Respondent was apprehended under S.50 of N.D.P.S. Act, 1985. Opium D 
was seized from him and he was charge sheeted. His application for bail was 
rejected by the Trial Court and the High Court. However, subsequent 
application for bail was allowed by the High Court. Hence this appeal by 
State. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD : I. The purpose of enacting the N.D.P.S. Act is to control the 
menace of drug trafficking as is evident form its scheme. Section 37 of the 
Act clearly states that person accused of an offence punishable for a term 
of 5 years or more shall not generally be released on bail. Thus negation 
E 
of bail is the rule and its grant an exception. Under sub-clause II of Cl.(b) F 
of Sec.37(1), Court before granting bail must satisfy on the basis of record 
produced before it that there exists reasonable ground for believing that the 
accused is not guilty of the offence with which he is charged and further that 
he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. Court must also take 
into consideration that the above condition of bail are in addition to the 
limitation provided under Cr.P.C. or any other law for the time being in force 
regulating the grant of bail. Liberal approach in the matter of bail is uncalled 
for. [620-B, C, DJ 
G 
Maktool Singh v. State of Punjab, [1999) 3 SCC 321; Intelligence 
Officer, Narcotics Control Bureau v. Sambhu Sankar and Anr., JT (2001) 2 H 
617 
618 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2001) SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 
A SC 372 and Smt. D. Sarojini v. State of A.P., (2001) 4 Supreme (179), relied 
on. 
2. Successive bail applications are permissible under changed 
circumstances. But without change in the circumstances, the second bail 
B application would be deemed to be seeking review of earlier judgment which 
is not permissible under criminal law. 1621-D, E] 
Hari Singh Mann v. Harbhajan Singh Bajwa and Anr., (2001] 1 SCC 
169, relied on. 
C 
3. The impugned order passed ignoring the mandatory requirement of 
Sec. 37 of NDPS Act and condition of granting bail under Cr.P.C., is not 
sustainable. [621-FI 
D 
E 
F 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No. 907 
of 2001. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 7 .12.2000 of the Madhya 
Pradesh Hgh Court in M. Cr!. C.No. 3306 of 2000. 
Uma Nath Singh and Ms. Bharti Tyagi for the Appellant. 
C.L. Sahu and Ms. Hema Sahu for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
SETHI, J. Leave granted. 
Acting upon a definite information received by the Police Station Jawad, 
District Neemuch, Madhya Pradesh, force was deployed and the respondent-
accused apprehended on the night of 24th March, 2000. After compliance of 
the mandatory provisions of Section 50 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic 
Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter called "the Act"), opium weighing 7 Kgs, 
was seized from the accused which he had kept in his bag. After completing 
G necessary procedural formalities and getting the samples tested, a charge-
sheet was submitted against the accused in the competent court. Applications 
for bail moved by the accused was rejected by the trial court. Dissatisfied with 
the rejection of his bail application, the respondent-accused moved an 
application in the High Court which was registered as Miscellaneous Criminal 
Case No. 2052 of 2000. The said application was rejected by the High Court 
H vide order dated 5.6.200. Without mentioning any change in the circumstances, 
STATE v. KAJAD [SETHI, J.] 
619 
the respondent-accused moved another application in the High Court in the A 
month of August, 2000 which was adjourned from time to time and ultimately 
allowed vide the order impugned in this appeal. 
Learned counsel appearing for the appellant-State has contended that 
the High Court has committed an error of law by granting bail to the respondent-
accused ignoring the provisions of Section 37 of the Act, though merely B 
making a mention of it in the impugned order. I

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