UNION OF INDIA versus PRATEEK SHUKLA

Citation: [2021] 2 S.C.R. 570 · Decided: 08-03-2021 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.Y. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
570
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 2 S.C.R.
UNION OF INDIA
v.
PRATEEK SHUKLA
(Criminal Appeal No. 284 of 2021)
MARCH 08, 2021
[DR DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD AND
M. R. SHAH, JJ.]
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985:
s. 37 – Complaint u/s.8,9A,25A,23 and 29 of the Act – Alleging
that the respondent was part of an international drug syndicate
involved in diversion of a controlled substance – Bail granted by
High Court – Appeal to Supreme Court – Held: The bail was granted
without applying legal norms provided u/s. 37 – The reasons for
granting bail do not reflect application of mind to the seriousness
of the offence involved – Bail liable to be cancelled.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. Ex facie, there has been no application of mind
by the High Court to the rival submissions and, particularly, to
the seriousness of the allegations involving an offence punishable
under the provisions of the NDPS Act. Merely recording the
submissions of the parties does not amount to an indication of a
judicial or, for that matter, a judicious application of mind by the
Single Judge of the High Court to the basic question as to whether
bail should be granted. [Para 11][575-D-E]
2.1 The provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act provide
the legal norms which have to be applied in determining whether
a case for grant of bail has been made out. There has been a
serious infraction by the High Court of its duty to apply the law.
The order granting bail is innocent of an awareness of the legal
principles involved in determining whether bail should be granted
to a person accused of an offence under the NDPS Act.
[Para 11][575-E-F]
2.2  The High Court was clearly not justified in granting
bail and the reasons provided by the High Court, do not reflect
application of mind to the seriousness of the offence which is
[2021] 2 S.C.R. 570
570
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
571
involved. The allegations against the respondent indicate that
he was a member of an international drug syndicate involved in
the diversion of a controlled substance; therefore, merely stating
that the respondent as an educated person with a Bachelor of
Technology “may not commit any offence” is an extraneous
circumstance that the High Court should not have considered
when granting bail for an offence under the NDPS Act.  While
determining that the respondent should be granted bail, the High
Court has erroneously applied the law to the circumstances.
[Paras 12 and 13][576-D-E]
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
284 of 2021
From the Judgment and Order dated 07.05.2019 of the High Court
of Judicature at Allahabad in Misc. Bail Application No. 9873 of 2019.
Praveen Agrawal, Gautam Kumar Laha, Advs. for the Appellants.
K. M. Nataraj, ASG., Ms. Binu Tamta, Vatsal Joshi, Sharath N.
Nambiar, B. V. Balaram Das, Advs. for the Appellant.
P. R. Rajhans, Jyoti Kumar Singh, Mrs. Paroma Sengupta, Vishal
Arun, Advs. for the Respondents
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.
1. Delay condoned.
2. Leave granted.
3. This appeal arises from a judgment and order of a Single Judge
of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad dated 7 May 2019, by
which bail was granted to the respondent, who is alleged to be involved
in the commission of offences punishable under the provisions of the
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act 19851.
4. The allegation is that, on 18 October 2018, secret information
was received by an intelligence officer in the Delhi Zone of the Narcotics
Control Bureau2 that a huge quantity of acetic anhydride had been
purchased by a company by the name of Altruist Chemicals Private
Limited3; and that the Company had not submitted its quarterly returns
for April – June 2018 and July – September 2018, as required under the
1 “NDPS Act”
2 “NCB”
3 “Company”
UNION OF INDIA v. PRATEEK SHUKLA
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
572
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 2 S.C.R.
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (Regulation of Control
Substances) Order 2013. It has been alleged that based on a suspicion
of diversion, a team of the NCB proceeded to the Company’s registered
office situated at 001, AG Block, Sector 45, Noida. On the premises
being found locked, the owner was called to the spot. The owner allegedly
informed the NCB team that the premises had been let out to a person
by the name of Himanshu Rana, who is a co-accused in the complaint
which has been lodged against the respondent. The lock was broken,
upon which a quantity

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