Section 164 CrPC Statement Recorded Without Procedural Safeguards Or 'Cooling-Off' Period Not A Valid Confession: Jharkhand High Court Anticipatory Bail Cannot Be Denied Merely Because Investigation Is At A Nascent Stage If Custodial Interrogation Is Not Indispensable: Telangana High Court Actual Pay Drawn During Last 10 Months Must Be Basis For Pension Calculation, Regardless Of Notional Pay In Parent Bank: Punjab & Haryana High Court Limitation For Redemption Of Usufructuary Mortgage Starts Only When Mortgage Money Is Paid Or Tendered: Allahabad High Court Exclusion Of Natural Heir From Will Not A Suspicious Circumstance If Execution Is Duly Proved: Punjab & Haryana High Court Right To Travel Abroad Is A Basic Human Right; Permission Cannot Be Denied Merely Because Visit Is For 'Social Or Celebratory' Purpose: Andhra Pradesh High Court Citizen Cannot Be Externed Merely For Raising Grievances Against Government Decisions: Bombay High Court Lack Of Opportunity To Cross-Examine Partition Commissioner Does Not Vitiate Final Decree; Report Is Part Of Record: Calcutta High Court Section 27 Evidence Act Recoveries Inadmissible If Police Had Prior Knowledge Of Location Before Recording Disclosure: Delhi High Court Foreigners Act | Burden Of Proof To Establish Citizenship Solely On Proceedee, Never Shifts; Prescription For Parkinson's No Proof Of Mental Illness To Explain Testimony Contradictions: Gauhati High Court Trial Court Erred In Abating Suit While Application To Bring Legal Heirs On Record Was Pending: Gujarat High Court Places Of Worship Act 1991 Not A Shield Against Land Acquisition By State For Public Purpose: Allahabad High Court Unregistered Partition Deed Creating New Rights In Immovable Property Inadmissible In Evidence: Himachal Pradesh High Court Illiteracy No Excuse For Filing False Income Tax Returns, Court Must Presume Culpable Mental State Under Section 278E: Jharkhand High Court Trial Court Must Consider Convenience Of Family & Accused's Right To Assist Counsel While Deciding Jail Shifting Applications: J&K High Court Investigation Substantially Complete, Offence Carries Max 7 Years Jail: Karnataka High Court Grants Bail To Police Officers In Corruption Case Buyer's Knowledge Of Title Defect Doesn't Extinguish Statutory Warranty Of Title Unless Sale Deed Specifically Excludes It: Kerala High Court Madras High Court Sets Aside Appointment Of PAs To Judges, Says Relaxation Of Qualifications Via Circular Violates Article 14 BNSS | Mere Allegation Of Calling Deceased To Spot Not Sufficient To Deny Bail To Woman If Charge Sheet Filed: Orissa High Court Amendment To Rectify Property Description In Agreement To Sell Can Be Allowed At Any Stage Of Specific Performance Suit: Delhi High Court NDPS | Confession Before Police Cannot Be Sole Basis For Prosecution: Telangana High Court Grants Bail No Judicial Sanctity For Adulterous Relationships: J&K High Court Refuses To Quash Abduction FIR Involving Married Woman Habitual Offender Accused Of Brutal Murder Of SC Community Member Denied Bail: Kerala High Court Prosecution Fails To Prove Murder Charge As Recovery Witnesses Turn Hostile: Uttarakhand High Court Acquits Man Acquittal In Criminal Case Based On Benefit Of Doubt Does Not Automatically Absolve Employee From Disciplinary Liability: Madhya Pradesh High Court Punjab & Haryana HC Quashes FIR Against Woman For Dressing Pet Dog As Lord Krishna Personal Laws Cannot Be Used As Shield To Commit Gang Rape Under Garb Of Nikah Halala: Allahabad High Court

Supreme Court Sets Aside High Court's Bail Order, Emphasizes Conditions for Granting Bail in Narcotic Drugs Case

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India has set aside the bail order passed by the High Court of judicature at Allahabad in a case involving offenses under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. The apex court, in its judgment delivered by Justice Pankaj Mithal, emphasized the conditions that need to be satisfied for granting bail in cases related to narcotics offenses.

The respondent-accused, Ajay Kumar Singh @ Pappu, had been released on bail by the High Court, taking into consideration the larger mandate of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. However, the Supreme Court held that the High Court had failed to consider Section 37 of the NDPS Act, which lays down the conditions for granting bail in offenses involving commercial quantities of narcotics.

Justice Pankaj Mithal, in the judgment, stated, "No person accused of an offense involving trade in commercial quantity of narcotics is liable to be released on bail unless the court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such an offense and that he is not likely to commit any offense while on bail."

The Supreme Court further highlighted that the role of the respondent-accused, alleged to be the kingpin and organizer of the illicit trade in ganja, was different from that of the driver and helper who had already been granted bail. The Court noted the antecedents of the accused, including his involvement in similar crimes in the past.

Taking these factors into account, the Supreme Court concluded that the High Court had erred in granting bail to the respondent-accused. Consequently, the Court set aside the bail order and allowed the appeal filed by the Union of India.

This judgment serves as a reminder of the stringent conditions that must be satisfied for granting bail in cases involving offenses under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. The ruling emphasizes the need to consider the nature of the offense, the role of the accused, their antecedents, and the likelihood of committing further offenses while on bail.

D.D-28.March 2023

UNION OF INDIA   VS AJAY KUMAR SINGH @ PAPPU 

Latest Legal News