In case of recovery of such a huge quantity of narcotic substance, the Courts should be slow in granting even regular bail: Supreme Court

Share:
bail ndps bail accused Certified 91 ndps Bail Bail Evidence Bail NDPS NDPS custody investigation ganja NDPS Acquittal acquits PITNDPS

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

Download Judgment

Share: