No Evidence Prevails Unless ‘Conclusive, Convincing, and Beyond Reasonable Doubt’: Calcutta High Court Modifies Assault Convictions” "Fraudulent Intentions Clear as Day": Rajasthan High Court Denies Bail in ₹40 Crore Commodity Trading Scam Punjab and Haryana High Court Grants Bail to Former Minister in Money Laundering Case Mere Apology Insufficient to Negate Criminal Liability for Cyber Harassment: Madras High Court Mere Criminal Antecedents Not Sufficient to Deny Bail; Long Incarceration and Completion of Investigation Warrant Bail: Kerala High Court Justice Cannot Be Denied When Plaintiff Proves Right, Title, and Interest in Property, Says Calcutta High Court Permanent Injunction Granted Against Government for Failure to Follow Mandatory Rule 3 Notice: Andhra Pradesh High Court Circumstantial Evidence Must Form an Unbroken Chain: P&H High Court Validates Conviction under Sections 302/34 IPC "Right to Be Forgotten Must Prevail Over Freedom of Expression in Acquittal Cases," Rules Delhi High Court Unjust Enrichment Cannot Be the Characteristic of a Government: Kerala High Court Orders 12% Interest on Delayed Payments Vague and Omnibus Statements Cannot Sustain Criminal Prosecution: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Alleging Cruelty and Forced Miscarriage State Law Governs Court Fees Refunds in Mediation Settlements, But Refund Allowed as Discretionary Relief: Supreme Court Death Was Homicidal, Not Suicidal: Supreme Court Upholds Conviction in Wife's Murder Case Land Compensation | Market Value Determined by the Reference Court Is Lawful and Reasonable: Andhra Pradesh High Court Cal High Court Quashes Wilful Defaulter Declarations, Cites Procedural Violations and Unreliable Evidence Taxation Law | When tax liability arises solely due to retrospective amendments, waiver of interest is warranted: Punjab and Haryana High Court Civil Authorities Not Required to Be Impleaded in Bail Applications: Supreme Court Clarifies Bail Procedures for Foreign Nationals Compensation Must Address Long-Term Needs and Recovery: Supreme Court Enhances Compensation for Accident Victim to ₹48 Lakhs Criminal Law Cannot Be Misused for Civil Matters: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against MLA in Goa Property Dispute Minor Contradictions in Testimonies Not Sufficient to Overturn Convictions: Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal in Kerala Political Clash Murder Case

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

Similar News