CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints Minimum Wages Cannot Be Ignored While Determining Just Compensation: Andhra Pradesh High Court Re-Fixes Income of Deceased Mason, Enhances Interest to 7.5% 34 IPC | Common Intention Is Inferred From Manner Of Attack, Weapons Carried And Concerted Conduct: Allahabad High Court Last Date of Section 4 Publication Is Crucial—Error in Date Cannot Depress Market Value: Bombay High Court Enhances Compensation in Beed Land Acquisition Appeals Order 26 Rule 10-A CPC | Rarest of Rare: When a Mother Denies Her Own Child: Rajasthan High Court Orders DNA Test to Decide Maternity Acquittal Is Not a Passport Back to Uniform: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Dismissal of Constable in NDPS Case Despite Trial Court Verdict Limitation Under Section 468 Cr.P.C. Cannot Be Ignored — But Section 473 Keeps the Door Open in the Interest of Justice: P&H HC Non-Stamping Renders A Document Inadmissible, Not Void – Defect Is Curable Once Duty Is Paid: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Specific Performance MP High Court Upholds Ladli Behna Yojana Criteria; Rules Registration Deadlines and Age Limits Fall Under Executive Domain Criminal Courts Are Not Recovery Agents: Orissa High Court Grants Bail in ₹3.5 Crore Land Fraud Cases Citing Article 21 and Terminal Illness Employee Cannot Switch Cadre At His Sweet Will After Accepting Promotion: J&K High Court Rejects Claim For Retrospective Assistant Registrar Appointment Anticipatory Bail Cannot Expire With Charge-Sheet: Supreme Court Reiterates Liberty Is Not Bound by Procedural Milestones Order II Rule 2 Cannot Eclipse Amendment Power Under Order VI Rule 17: MP High Court Refuses to Stall Will-Based Title Suit Grounds of Arrest Must Be Personal, Not Formal – But Detailed Allegations Suffice: Kerala High Court Upholds Arrest in Sabarimala Gold Misappropriation Case Grounds of Arrest Are Not a Ritual – They Are a Constitutional Mandate Under Article 22(1): Allahabad High Court Sets Aside Arrest for Non-Supply of Written Grounds Sect. 25 NDPS | Mere Ownership Cannot Fasten NDPS Liability – ‘Knowingly Permits’ Must Be Proved Beyond Reasonable Doubt: MP High Court Section 308 CrPC | Revocation of Pardon Is Not Automatic on Prosecutor’s Certificate: Karnataka High Court Joint Family and Ancestral Property Are Alien to Mohammedan Law: Gujarat High Court Sets Aside Injunction Right to Health Cannot Wait for Endless Consultations: Supreme Court Pulls Up FSSAI Over Delay in Front-of-Pack Warning Labels If A Son Dies Intestate Leaving Wife And Children, The Mother Has No Share: Karnataka 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