Bail Under NDPS Act is an Exception, Not the Rule: High Court of Tripura Cancels Bail
Discrepancies in GD entries and lack of credible grounds for non-guilt lead to bail cancellation in NDPS case.
The High Court of Tripura, under the bench of Justice Arindam Lodh, has cancelled the bail of Mijanur Rahaman, originally granted by the Special Judge, Sepahijala District, in a narcotics case. The judgment emphasized the strict criteria under the NDPS Act for granting bail, highlighting procedural discrepancies and insufficient grounds for the accused’s non-guilt as key reasons.
The case revolves around Mijanur Rahaman, who was arrested under Sections 20(b)(ii)(c), 25, and 29 of the NDPS Act in connection with a drug-related offence. The Special Judge of Sepahijala District, Sonamura, had granted bail to Rahaman, which was subsequently challenged by the State of Tripura. The prosecution argued that there were no reasonable grounds to believe that Rahaman was not guilty and pointed out discrepancies in the General Diary (GD) entries recorded by the police.
Procedural Discrepancies in GD Entries:
The court meticulously examined the discrepancies in the GD entries, which formed a crucial part of the initial bail decision. Justice Lodh stated, “The dates mentioned in GD Entries No. 19, 20, and 21 reveal apparent printing errors. The entry dates of GDE No. 19 and 20 are consistent, while GDE No. 21’s date appears to be a typographical error, referring to an earlier date than the previous entries.”
Legal Standards for Bail Under NDPS Act:
Emphasizing the stringent conditions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, the court noted that simply filing a charge-sheet does not automatically justify granting bail. The court remarked, “Section 37 clearly mandates that the court must have reasonable grounds to believe that the accused is not guilty and is unlikely to reoffend. These provisions ensure that bail in NDPS cases is not granted lightly.”
Assessment of Reasonable Grounds for Non-Guilt:
The court evaluated whether there were substantial grounds to believe Rahaman’s non-guilt. Drawing from the Supreme Court’s interpretation in Narcotics Control Bureau vs. Mohit Aggarwal, Justice Lodh emphasized, “The requirement for ‘reasonable grounds’ means that the evidence must be credible and plausible, giving the court sufficient reason to believe in the accused’s non-guilt.”
Justice Lodh stated, “Granting bail to an accused under the NDPS Act is an exception and not the rule. The materials on record do not suggest any reasonable grounds to believe that the accused is not guilty of the alleged offences.”
The High Court’s decision to cancel the bail of Mijanur Rahaman reinforces the judiciary’s strict stance on bail under the NDPS Act. By overturning the Special Judge’s order, the court reaffirmed the necessity of rigorous adherence to legal standards designed to prevent premature release of individuals accused of serious drug offences. This ruling is expected to influence future bail considerations under the NDPS Act, promoting a cautious and stringent approach.
Date of Decision: 20th June 2024
State of Tripura vs. Mijanur Rahaman
