UNION OF INDIA versus NIYAZUDDIN SK & ANR.

Citation: [2017] 6 S.C.R. 513 · Decided: 28-07-2017 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: KURIAN JOSEPH · Disposal: Disposed off

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

Judgment (excerpt)

[2017] 6 S.C.R. 513 
UNION OF INDIA 
v. 
NIYAZUDDIN SK & ANR. 
(Criminal Appeal No. 1277 of2017) 
JULY 28, 2017 
[KURIAN JOSEPH AND R. BANUMATHJ, JJ.) 
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 -
s.37 - Respondents-accused were charged for offence involving 
commercial quantity - Grant of bail - Considerations for - Held: 
A 
B 
Once the Public Prosecutor opposes the application for bail to a 
C 
person accused of the offences under s.37 of the Act, in case, the 
court proposes to grant bail to such a person, two conditions are to 
be mandatorily satisfied in addition to the normal requirements 
under the provisions of the Cr.P.C. or any other enactment - The 
court must be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing D 
that the person is not guilty of such offence and that person is not 
likely to commit any offence while on bail - In the instant case, 
there was no such consideration with regard to the mandatory 
requirements, while releasing the respondents on bail - Matter needs 
to be considered afresh by the High Court - The impugned order is 
set aside and the matter is remitted to the High Court for fresh 
E 
consideration - Bail. 
Disposing of the appeal, the Court 
HELD: Section 37 of the NDPS Act contains special 
provisions with regard to grant of bail in respect of certain offences 
enumerated under the said Section. They are:- Jn the case of a 
person accused of an offence punishable under Section 19, under 
Section 24, under Section 27 A and of offences involving 
commercial quantity. The accusation in the present case is with 
regard to the fourth factor namely, commercial quantity. Once 
the Public Prosecutor opposes the application for bail to a person 
accused of the enumerated offences under Section 37 of the NDPS 
Act, in case, the court proposes to grant bail to such a person, 
two conditions are to be mandatorily satisfied in addition to the 
normal requirements under the provisions of the Cr.P.C. or any 
other enactment. (1) The court must be satisfied that there are 
513 
F 
G 
H 
514 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] 6 S.C.R. 
A reasonable grounds for believing that the person is not guilty of 
such offence; (2) that person is not likely to commit any offence 
while on bail. There is no such consideration with regard to the 
mandatory requirements, while releasing the respondents on bail. 
Hence, the matter needs to be considered afresh by the High 
B 
Court. The impugned order is set aside and the matter is remitted 
to the High Court for fresh consideration. [Paras 7-9] [515-G-H; 
516-A-E) 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal 
No. 1277 of2017. 
c 
From the Judgment and Order dated 22.09.2014 of the High 
CourtofCalcuttainCRMNo.10431 of2014. 
Ranjit Singh, SG, T. C. Sharma, Mrs. Ranjana Narayan, 
B. Krishna Prasad, Ritin Rai, Advs. for the Appellant. 
Ms. Rukhsana Choudhury, Musharraf Hussain, Advs. for the 
D 
Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
KURIAN, J. I. Leave granted. 
2. The appellant is before this Court aggrieved by the order 
E 
dated 22.09.2014 releasing Respondent Nos.I and 2 on bail. 
3. We are informed that Respondent No.2/Md. Asif Aslam is 
absconding. 
4. The respondents are the accused in a N.D.P.S. case charged 
under Section 22/23 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances 
F 
Act, 1985 (for short 'the NDPS Act'). The consideration by the High 
Court in the impugned order reads as follows: 
G 
H 
"Having heard the learned advocate for the petitioners and the 
learned advocate for the State and considering the materials 
available in the case diary and also considering the fact that the 
petitioners are in custody for last 203 days and the investigation is 
complete and the chargesheet has already been submitted and 
further considering the fact that the consignment in question was 
validly imported in India and the same has already been seized, 
we are of the opinion that further detention of the accused/ 
petitioners is not necessary. 
UNION OF INDIA v. NIYAZUDDIN SK & ANR. 
515 
[KURIAN, J.] 
Therefore, the accused/petitioner no. I, namely, Niyazuddin Sk., 
A 
and the petitioner no.2, namely l\1d. Asif Aslam, be released on 
bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees fifteen 
thousand) only each with two sureties oflike amount, one of whom 
must be local each, to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial 
Magistrate, Bara sat." 
5. Shri Ranjit Kumar, learned Solicitor General, inviting our 
r

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