UNION OF INDIA versus RATTAN MALLIK @ HABUL

Citation: [2009] 1 S.C.R. 533 · Decided: 23-01-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.K. JAIN · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2009] 1 S.C.R. 533 
.,.... 
UNION OF INDIA 
A 
... 
v . 
RATIAN MALLIK@ HABUL 
(Criminal Appeal No. 137 of 2009) 
JANUARY 23, 2009 
B 
[D.K. JAIN AND R.M. LODHA, JJ.] 
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985: 
ss. 8127 A, 8129 and 37 - Conviction for offences under c 
provisions of the Act - Grant of bail to accused and 
suspension of sentence by High Court - Held: When 
prosecution/conviction is foroffence(s) under a special statute 
and that statute provides specific provision for dealing with 
matters arising thereunder, the provisions cannot be ignored-
D 
Grant of bail, being without keeping in view the mandatory 
requirements of s. 37, not sustainable - Matter remitted to 
High Court- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s. 439. 
s.37 (1) (b) and (2) - Grant of bail- To the offender for 
E 
offences under the Act - Parameters for - discussed. 
High Court, by the impugned order had suspended 
the sentence awarded by trial Court to the respondent for 
having committed offences ulss. 8127 A and 8/29 of 
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. 
F 
Respondent was released on bail. 
The qµestion for consideration in appeal to this Court 
was whether High Court, while accepting the prayer for 
grant of bail, had kept in view the parameters of s.37 of G 
the Act • 
.,. -/ 
Allowing the appeal and remitting the matter to High 
Court, the Court 
533 
H 
534 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2009] 1 S.C.R. 
A 
HELD: 1.1. When a prosecution/conviction is for 
,,.,. 
offence(s) under a special statute and that statute 
,.. 
contains specific provisions for dealing with matters 
arising thereunder, including an application for grant of 
bail, these provisions cannot be ignored while dealing 
B with such an application. In the present case, the 
respondent has been convicted and sentenced for 
offences under the Act and therefore, while dealing with 
his application for grant of bail, in addition to the broad 
principles to be applied in prosecution for offences under 
c IPC, the relevant provision in the said special statute in 
this regard had to be kept in view. [Para 11] [539-A-D] 
1.2. The impugned order having been passed 
ignoring the mandatory requirements of Section 37 of 
D 
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic substances Act, 1985, 
it cannot be sustained. In the present case, the 
circumstances which have weighed with the High Court 
to conclude that it was a fit case for grant of bail are : (i) 
that nothing has been found from the possession of the 
respondent; (ii) he is in jail for the last three years and 
E (iii) that there is no chance of his appeal being heard 
within a period of seven years. The stated circumstances 
may be relevant for grant of bail in matters arising out of 
conviction under the IPC etc. but are not sufficient to 
satisfy the mandatory requirements as stipulated in sub-
F clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 37 of the Act. 
Merely because, according to the Judge, nothing was 
found from the possession of the respondent, it could not 
be said at this stage that the respondent was not guilty 
of the offences for which he had been charged and 
G convicted. It seems that the provisions of the Act and 
more particularly Section 37 were not brought to the 
•• 
notice of the Judge. [Paras 15 and 16] [541-E-H; 542-A-
B] 
H 
2.1. It is clear from a bare reading of the non-obstante 
UNION OF INDIA v. RATIAN MALLIK@ HABUL 
535 
clause in Section 37 of the Act and sub-section (2) thereof A 
that the power to grant bail to a person accused of having 
committed offence under the Act is not only subject to 
the limitations imposed u/s. 439 Cr.P.C., it is also s'ubject 
to the restrictions placed by sub-clause (b) of sub-section 
(1) of Section 37 of the Act. Apart from giving an 
B 
opportunity to the Public Prosecutor to oppose the 
application for such release, the other twin conditions viz; 
(i) the satisfaction of the Court that there are reasonable 
grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of the 
alleged offence; and (ii) that he is not likely to commit any c 
offence while on bail, have to be satisfied. It is manifest 
that the conditions are cumulative and not alternative. 
[Para 13] (540-D-F] 
2.2. The satisfaction contemplated regarding the 
accused being not guilty, has to be based on D 
"reasonable grounds". The expression ·reasonable 
grounds' has not been defined in the Act but means 
something more than prima facie grounds. It connotes 
substantial probable c

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