LI Network
Published on: February 19, 2024 at 09:00 IST
The Supreme Court underscored the need for caution in granting bail to accused individuals when substantial quantities of narcotics are recovered.
The Court, comprised of Justices B.R. Gavai and Sandeep Mehta, overturned a High Court decision that had granted anticipatory bail to an accused involved in a case related to the procurement/supply conspiracy of 232.5 Kg of ganja.
The Supreme Court’s decision highlighted the High Court’s failure to acknowledge the recovery of the narcotic substance, ganja, which far exceeded the commercial quantity.
The Court also pointed out the accused’s criminal antecedents, having been implicated in two prior cases under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.
The case involved an FIR registered against the accused respondent under Sections 8(c), 20(b)(ii)(c), and 29(1) of the NDPS Act for conspiring in the procurement/supply of the recovered ganja.
Despite opposition from the State’s Public Prosecutor, the High Court granted anticipatory bail to the respondent, prompting the State to appeal against this decision.
Upon reviewing the High Court’s order and Section 37 of the NDPS Act, the Supreme Court emphasized the mandatory requirement for the court to record satisfaction that the accused is not guilty of the alleged offense when opposing bail.
The Court criticized the High Court’s unusual condition of depositing money to the Tamil Nadu Advocate Clerk Association as a condition for bail, deeming it alien to bail jurisprudence.
The Supreme Court, finding the High Court’s order cryptic and perverse, set it aside and directed the accused respondent to surrender before the trial court within 10 days.