Special Appeal Maintainable If Single Judge's Order Relates To Authority Acting Without Statutory Appellate Jurisdiction: Allahabad High Court Recall Of Witness For Cross-Examination Permissible On Newly Framed Issue Post-Remand Even If Disposal Timeline Is Fixed: Karnataka High Court Litigant Cannot Overcome Law Of Limitation By Shifting Blame On Counsel Through Inconsistent Stands: Madras High Court Cross-Cases Cannot Be Clubbed If Co-Accused In Complaint Case Is Absconding & Complainant Delayed Process: Allahabad High Court Cross-Cases Cannot Be Clubbed If Co-Accused In Complaint Case Is Absconding & Complainant Delayed Process: Allahabad High Court Preventive Detention Not Warranted If Person Can Be Dealt With Under Ordinary Laws; No Effort To Arrest In Pending Cases: Supreme Court Accused Languishing In Jail For 9 Years Deserves Bail; Right To Speedy Trial Under Article 21 Violated: Supreme Court Election Disputes Must Be Resolved Expeditiously; Long Stays Render Adjudication A Mockery Of Justice: Madras High Court Delhi High Court Suspends LOC, Permits Businessman To Travel Abroad For Healthcare Conferences; Cites Roots In Society & Past Compliance Section 138 NI Act Complaint Not Maintainable By Third Party Who Is Neither Payee Nor Holder In Due Course: Allahabad High Court Writ Petition Cannot Be Dismissed On ‘Forum Non Conveniens’ If Respondent's Office Is Within Court's Jurisdiction: Supreme Court Supreme Court Doubts 'Sajjan Singh' Ruling; Refers To Larger Bench Whether Third Judge Can Re-examine Unanimous Findings Under Section 392 CrPC SARFAESI Sale Vitiated If Balance 75% Bid Amount Is Paid Beyond 15 Days Without Written Extension Agreement: Supreme Court Delhi High Court Can't Refuse Writ Petition Against BSF Dismissal Merely Because Cause Of Action Arose Outside Delhi: Supreme Court Private Rights Must Yield To Public Interest: Andhra Pradesh High Court Directs Removal Of Encroachments On Public Road Review Jurisdiction Cannot Be Invoked To Re-Agitate Factual Disputes Or Seek Re-Hearing On Merits: Allahabad High Court Recovery Under Section 27 Evidence Act Vitiated If Police Already Present At Spot Before Arrival Of Panch Witnesses: Bombay High Court Mere Non-Compliance Or Delay In Procedure Under Section 52A NDPS Act Is An Irregularity, Not An Illegality Entitling Accused To Bail: Calcutta High Court Recovery Of Weapon Used In Commission Of Offence Not A Sine Qua Non For Conviction If Ocular Evidence Is Corroborated: Allahabad High Court Seized Vehicles Shouldn't Be Kept Idle To Rot In Police Stations, Utility Vanishes Due To Stagnation: Karnataka High Court Or 39 CPC | Trial Court Erred In Dismissing Injunction Application Despite Respondent's 'No Objection' To Restraining Share Transfer: Gauhati High Court Issuing NBW Merely For Absence Of Accused Already On Bail Is Improper; Liberty Cannot Be Dealt With Lightly: Orissa High Court 138 NI | Expert Examination Of Disputed Documents Essential For Just Adjudication If Complainant Denies Handwriting & Signatures: Rajasthan High Court Order 41 Rule 27 CPC Cannot Be Invoked To Fill Lacunae In Evidence If Party Voluntarily Closed Evidence In Trial Court: Delhi 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