High Court, As A Constitutional Court Of Record, Possesses The Inherent Power To Correct Its Own Record: Bombay High Court High Court of Uttarakhand Acquits Defendants in High-Profile Murder Case, Cites Lack of Evidence In Cases of Financial Distress, Imposing A Mandatory Deposit Under Negotiable Instruments Act May Jeopardize Appellant’s Right To Appeal: Rajasthan High Court Patna High Court Acquits Accused, Questions “Capacity of Victim to Make Coherent Statement” with 100% Burn Injuries Allahabad High Court Denies Tax Refund for Hybrid Vehicle Purchased Before Electric Vehicle Exemption Policy Entering A Room with Someone Cannot, By Any Stretch Of Imagination, Be Considered Consent For Sexual Intercourse: Bombay High Court No Specific Format Needed for Dying Declaration, Focus on Mental State and Voluntariness: Calcutta High Court Delhi High Court Allows Direct Appeal Under DVAT Act Without Tribunal Reference for Pre-2005 Tax Periods NDPS | Mere Registration of Cases Does Not Override Presumption of Innocence: Himachal Pradesh High Court No Previous Antecedents and No Communal Tension: High Court Grants Bail in Caste-Based Abuse Case Detention of Petitioner Would Amount to Pre-Trial Punishment: Karnataka High Court Grants Bail in Dowry Harassment Case Loss of Confidence Must Be Objectively Proven to Deny Reinstatement: Kerala High Court Reinstates Workman After Flawed Domestic Enquiry Procedural lapses should not deny justice: Andhra High Court Enhances Compensation in Motor Accident Case Canteen Subsidy Constitutes Part of Dearness Allowance Under EPF Act: Gujarat High Court Concurrent Findings Demonstrate Credibility – Jharkhand High Court Affirms Conviction in Cheating Case 125 Cr.P.C | Financial responsibility towards dependents cannot be shirked due to personal obligations: Punjab and Haryana High Court

Bail Under NDPS Act is an Exception, Not the Rule: High Court of Tripura Cancels Bail

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


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

Similar News