[2025] 2 S.C.R. 619 : 2025 INSC 153
The State of Jharkhand
v.
Sunny Kumar @ Sunny Kumar Sao
(Criminal Appeal No. 538 of 2025)
03 February 2025
[Bela M. Trivedi and Prasanna B. Varale, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Matter pertains to the correctness of the order passed by the High
Court granting bail to the accused in a case registered for offence
punishable u/s.18 of the NDPS Act, and when subsequently he
was involved in another case of the same nature.
Headnotes†
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 –
s.18 – Bail – High Court granted bail to the accused in a
case registered for offence punishable u/s.18 – Subsequently,
accused involved in another case under NDPS Act and also
arrested for the same, and trial had already commenced:
Held: Having regard to the nature of the offence as also the fact
that the accused has been arrested in a similar offence under the
NDPS Act, it is appropriate to set aside the impugned order passed
by the High Court – Impugned order set aside – Accused to be
taken into custody and trial court to expedite the trial. [Paras 5, 6]
List of Acts
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.
List of Keywords
Bail; Arrest; Accused involved in another case while on bail; Arrest
for similar offence.
Case Arising From
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
538 of 2025
From the Judgment and Order dated 24.11.2022 of the High Court
of Jharkhand at Ranchi in BA No. 9276 of 2022
620
[2025] 2 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellant:
Farrukh Rasheed, Ms. Tulika Mukherjee.
Advs. for the Respondent:
Ms. Vrinda Bhandari, Ms. Pragya Barsaiyan.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Judgment
1.
Leave granted.
2.
The present appeal is directed against the impugned judgment and
order dated 24.11.2022, passed by the High Court of Jharkhand at
Ranchi in B.A.No. 9276 of 2022, whereby the High Court had allowed
the said application filed by the respondent-accused seeking bail in
connection with Case No. 231 of 2022, registered at Police Station-
Sadar, District- Chatra, Jharkhand for the offence punishable under
Section-18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act
(for short ‘the NDPS Act’).
3.
It is sought to be submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the
appellant-State that after the release of the respondent-accused on
bail, vide the impugned order dated 24.11.2022 passed by the High
Court, the respondent-accused was involved in another case under
the NDPS Act, and was also arrested for the same on 12.07.2023.
He also submitted that the trial in respect of the present appeal,
has already commenced and only three witnesses have remained
to be examined.
4.
However, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-accused
submitted that the recovery of the alleged contraband was not of
commercial quantity and it was only of an intermediate quantity,
and therefore, the rigors of Section-37 would not be applicable
to the instant case. She also submitted that the appellant-State
has challenged the very order granting the respondent-accused
bail, and it is not a case of cancellation of bail on the ground of
breach of any of the bail conditions. She has conceded that at
present, the respondent-accused is under arrest in connection
with other offence punishable under the NDPS Act, registered
after the present one.
[2025] 2 S.C.R.
621
The State of Jharkhand v. Sunny Kumar @ Sunny Kumar Sao
5.
Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsels for
the parties and to the nature of the offence as also the fact that the
respondent-accused has been arrested in a similar offence under
the NDPS Act, we deem it appropriate to set aside the impugned
order passed by the High Court.
6.
Accordingly, the impugned order dated 24.11.2022, passed by the
High Court of Jharkhand, is set aside. The respondent-accused is
directed to be taken into custody in connection with Case No. 231 of
2022, registered at Police Station-Sadar, District-Chatra, Jharkhand.
However, the Trial Court is directed to expedite the trial and conclude
the same in accordance with law, preferably within four months from
the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
7.
Accordingly, the appeal is allowed.
8.
Pending application(s), if any, shall stand closed.
Result of the case: Appeal allowed.
†Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain
Lex