Registrar Has No Power To Cancel Registered Sale Deeds: Madras High Court Reaffirms Civil Court’s Exclusive Jurisdiction MP High Court Refuses to Quash FIR Against Principal of Sacred Heart Convent High School in Forced Conversion Case Employees Of Registered Societies Cannot Claim Article 311 Protection: Delhi High Court Clarifies Limits Of Constitutional Safeguards In Private Employment Maintenance Cannot Be Doubled Without Cogent Reasons, Wife's Education And Earning Capacity Relevant Factors: Gujarat High Court A Foreign Award Must First Be "Recognised" Before It Becomes A Decree: Bombay High Court A Registered Will Does Not Become Genuine Merely Because It Is Registered: Andhra Pradesh High Court Rejects Suspicious Testament Compensation Under Railways Act Requires Proof of Bona Fide Passenger – Mere GRP Entry and Medical Records Cannot Establish ‘Untoward Incident’: Delhi High Court Tenancy Rights Cannot Be Bequeathed By Will: Himachal Pradesh High Court Declares Mutation Based On Tenant’s Will Void Preventive Detention Cannot Be Based On Mere Apprehension of Bail: Delhi High Court Quashes PITNDPS Detention Order Probate Court Alone Has Exclusive Jurisdiction To Decide Validity Of Will – Probate Petition Cannot Be Rejected Merely Because A Civil Suit Is Pending: Allahabad High Court PwD Candidates Cannot Be Denied Appointment After Selection; Authorities Must Accommodate Them In Suitable Posts: Supreme Court Directs SSC And CAG To Appoint Candidates With Disabilities When Registered Partition Deed Exists, Plea Of Prior Oral Partition Cannot Override It:  Madras High Court Dismisses Second Appeal Municipal Bodies Cannot Demand Character Verification Of Residents: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Surveillance Condition In Building Sanction State Cannot Exploit Contractual Workers For Perennial Work: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Pay Parity To PUNBUS Drivers And Conductors Police Inputs Cannot Create New Building Laws: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Security-Based Conditions Near Nabanna 'Raising A Child As Daughter Does Not Make Her An Adopted Child': Punjab & Haryana High Court Once Leave Under Section 80(2) CPC Is Granted, Prior Notice to Government Is Not Mandatory: Orissa High Court Restores Trial Court Decree State Cannot Use Article 226 To Evade Compliance With Court Orders: Gauhati High Court Dismisses Union’s Petition With Costs ED Officers Accused Of Assault By ₹23-Crore Scam Accused – FIR Survives But Probe Shifted To CBI: Jharkhand High Court High Courts Should Not Interfere In Academic Integrity Proceedings At Preliminary Stage: Kerala High Court Power Of Attorney Holder With Personal Knowledge Can Depose In Cheque Bounce Cases: Kerala High Court Sets Aside Acquittal Agreement Cannot Dissolve Hindu Marriage, But Can Prove Mutual Separation”: J&K & Ladakh High Court Denies Maintenance

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