UNION OF INDIA versus RAM SAMUJH AND ANR.

Citation: [1999] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 76 · Decided: 30-08-1999 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.T. THOMAS · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
UNION OF INDIA 
v. 
RAM SAMUJH AND ANR. 
AUGUST 30, 1999 
[K.T. THOMAS AND M.B. SHAH, JJ.] 
Criminal Law : 
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985: Section 37. 
Bail-Mandatory conditions-Non-compliance-Effect of-High Court 
granted bail to accused without justifiable reasons-Correctness of-Held : 
Legislative mandate in S.37 required to be adhered to and followed-Persons 
who are dealing in narcotic drugs are instruments in causing death or in 
inflicting deathblow to a number of innocent. young victims, who are 
D vulnerable, and it causes deleterious effects and deadly impact on the society-
To check the menace of drug trafficking persons accused of offences under 
NDPS Act should not be released on bail unless mandatory conditions 
provided in S.37 are satisfied-Courtshould implement the law in the spirit 
with which Parliament after due deliberation has amended-Order releasing 
E accused on bail quashed 
In a raid carried out at the residence of respondent-accused, 5 Kg of 
opium was recovered. The Sessions Judge rejected the bail application of the 
respondent. However, the High Court granted bail without justifiable reasons 
ignoring the provisions of Section 37 of the Narcotic and Psychotropic 
F Substances Act, 1985. Hence this appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD : 1.1. The legislative mandate of Section 37 of the Narcotic and 
Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 is required to be adhered to and followed. 
G The persons who are dealing in narcotic drugs are instruments in causing 
death or in inflicting deathblow to a number Of innocent young victims, who 
are vulnerable, which causes deleterious effects and deadly impact on the 
society. [79-C-D] 
Durand Didier v. Chief Secretary, Union Territory o/Goa, [1990] 1 
H sec 95, relied on. 
76 
-
U.0.1. v. RAM SAMUJH [SHAH, J.) 
77 
1.2. To check the menace of dangerous drugs flooding the market, A 
_ Parliament has provided that the person accused of offences under the NDPS 
Act should not be released on bail during trial unless the mandatory conditions 
provided in Section 37, namely, 
(i) 
there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is 
not guilty of such of offence; and 
B 
(ii) that he is not likely to commit such offence while on bail are 
satisfied. {80-A-B] 
2. The High Court has not given any justifiable reason for not abiding 
by the aforesaid mandate while ordering the release of the respondent- C 
accused on bail. The Court should implement the law in the spirit with which 
the Parliament, after due deliberation, has amended. (80-B-C] 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 866 
of 1999. 
D 
From the Judgment and Order dated 20.8.98 of the Allahabad High Court 
in Crl. M.C. No. 552of1998. 
Anoop Chaudhary, (A.S. Rawat) and D.S. Mehra Adv. with him for the 
Appellant. 
K.B. Hina, (A.C.) for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
SHAH, J. Leave granted. 
E 
As respondent No. 1 has not engaged any counsel, the Registry was F 
directed to appoint an advocate as amicus curiae. We have heard the learned 
counsel for the parties. Only question involved in this appeal is whether the 
order passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, 
granting bail to respondent No. 1 Ram Samujh Yadav requires to be set aside 
on the ground that the High Court ignored the provisions of Section 37 of G 
·the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, i985 (hereinafter referred 
to as "NDPS Act") as well as the law laid down by this Court. 
It is alleged by the prosecution that on 21 May, 1997, a raid by the 
authorities of the Narcotic Department was carried out at the tubewell house 
of respondent No. 1 and 5 Kg of Opium was recovered. Tlre Sessions Judge H 
78 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1999] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 
A by the detail reasoned order dated 11 July, 1997 rejected the bail application 
after hearing Special Public Prosecutor (Narcotics) and considering the material 
on record. 
B 
The High Court· granted bail by a cryptic order dated 20 August, 1998 
which is extracted below: 
"The applicant is in jail since 22.5.1997 and trial has not concluded. 
Applicant Ram Samujh is admitted to bail in case crime No. 15 of 
97, under Sections 8/18 N.D.P.S. Act, P.S. Kotwali, Barabanki, district 
Barabanki, on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties, each 
C 
in the like amount to the satisfaction of Special Judge (N.D.P.S. Act), 
Barabanki and on the condition that the
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.