UDCPR | Municipal Authorities Empowered To Grant Relaxation For Recreational Open Spaces In Redevelopment Projects: Bombay High Court Appellate Court Can Enhance Compensation Under Motor Vehicles Act Even Without Cross-Appeal By Claimants: Allahabad High Court State Instrumentalities Cannot Supplement Reasons For Withholding Public Money Via Affidavits Years Later: Calcutta High Court Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act | Victim's Status As 'Illegal Immigrant' Does Not Dilute Offence Or Shield Perpetrator: Bombay High Court Clubbing Of Criminal Trials | No Basis To Direct Consolidation If Connected Proceedings Have Already Concluded: Delhi High Court IBC ‘Clean Slate’ Principle Cannot Extinguish Pre-existing Crystallized Liability Under Labour Awards: Bombay High Court Section 406 IPC | 'Donation' Does Not Constitute 'Entrustment'; Criminal Prosecution Quashed In Absence Of Aggrieved Victim: Delhi High Court Failure To Deliver Possession Of Plot Constitutes "Continuous Wrong" Giving Rise To Recurrent Cause Of Action Under Consumer Protection Act: Delhi State Commission High Court Cannot Entertain Writ Petition Under Article 226 When Statutory Appellate Remedy Under Section 107 CGST Act Is Available: Gujarat High Court Appointment Of Temple Servants Is The Exclusive Prerogative Of The Hereditary Trustee: Kerala High Court Stay Of Suit Proceedings Under CPC Does Not Automatically Bar Adjudication Of Pending Temporary Injunction Application: Rajasthan High Court Section 136A MV Act | Supreme Court Directs States To Impound Vehicles With Unpaid E-Challans And Mandates Electronic Enforcement Compliance Section 115 CPC | Executing Court Cannot Dismiss Execution Petition On Hyper-Technical Grounds Regarding LRs Of Judgment Debtor: Himachal Pradesh High Court Succession Act | Will Not Validly Executed If Attesting Witness Admits Signing Without Witnessing Testator’s Signature: Madras High Court High Court Cannot Interfere Under Article 227 To Correct Errors Of Fact Or Act As An Appellate Court: Madhya Pradesh High Court Advocates Act 1961 | Bar Council Has No Power To Suspend Advocate Pending Disciplinary Enquiry: Allahabad High Court Identification Of Accused By Police Personnel In Pitch Darkness Without Prior Acquaintance Is Unreliable: Himachal Pradesh High Court Body Shaming Or Insulting Physical Appearance Does Not Per Se Constitute Offence Under Section 509 IPC: Karnataka High Court Drishyam 3 | Interim Injunction To Restrain Film Release Cannot Be Granted Without Establishing Clear Subsisting Legal Right: Madras High Court Town Planning Scheme | Statutory Notice To Occupiers Under Rule 12(2)(a) Punjab Municipal Rules Is Mandatory And Independent Of Notice To Owner: Punjab & Haryana High Court

In case of recovery of such a huge quantity of narcotic substance, the Courts should be slow in granting even regular bail: Supreme Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India quashed the anticipatory bail granted by the Madras High Court to an accused involved in a Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) case. The apex court criticized the High Court's failure to consider the gravity of the offence involving a commercial quantity of ganja.

The crux of this judgment revolves around the grant of anticipatory bail in cases involving offences under the NDPS Act, particularly those concerning commercial quantities of narcotics. The Supreme Court emphasized the stringent conditions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act for granting bail in such serious offences.

The issue arose from the grant of anticipatory bail to B. Ramu by the Madras High Court, connected to the seizure of 232.5 kg of ganja, which is substantially above the threshold of commercial quantity as per the NDPS Act. The High Court’s decision was challenged by the State, pointing out the accused's involvement in similar prior offences under the NDPS Act.

Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice Sandeep Mehta, presiding over the matter, scrutinized the High Court's approach, especially its failure to address the commercial quantity involved and the respondent's criminal history. The Court observed, "In case of recovery of such a huge quantity of narcotic substance, the Courts should be slow in granting even regular bail to the accused what to talk of anticipatory bail more so when the accused is alleged to be having criminal antecedents."

The Supreme Court also found fault with the peculiar conditions imposed by the High Court for the grant of bail, including a financial deposit to an advocate's association, labeling it as unrelated to bail jurisprudence and "nothing short of perversity."

The Supreme Court, finding the High Court's order cryptic and perverse, set aside the grant of anticipatory bail. The Court directed the respondent-accused, B. Ramu, to surrender within 10 days.

Date of Decision: 12th February 2024

STATE BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE  VS B. RAMU

Latest Legal News