Judgment Intelligence
Bail GrantedRagini Dwivedi @ Gini @ Rags v. The State of Karnataka (with connected appeal and writ petition)
2021 INSC 38
Criminal Appeal No. 62 of 2021 (arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 5998 of 2020) with Criminal Appeal No. 63 of 2021 and W.P. (Crl.) No. 384 of 2020
- Court
- Supreme Court of India
- Date of Decision
- 21 January 2021
- Bench
- Justices R.F. Nariman, Navin Sinha and K.M. Joseph
- Relevant Acts & Sections
- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — Sections 21, 27, 27A, 29, 37, 67
Final Outcome
Appeal allowed. The High Court's judgment is set aside and the appellant released on bail on conditions to be imposed by the trial court; the connected appellant gets anticipatory bail, and the writ petition is dismissed as infructuous (paras 8, 10-12).
Source Supreme Court of India, www.sci.gov.in — judgment dated 21.01.2021
Key holdings
- Before applying Section 37, the court must see what offence the material prima facie discloses, not merely the sections charged (paras 7-8).
- Where no drugs are recovered and the case rests on another person's statement showing at most consumption, only Section 27 is attracted (paras 6-7).
- Once Section 37 is out of the way, bail must ensue in such a case (para 8).
- The Court noted that the High Court itself had found the conspiracy charge tenuous and that no charge-sheet had been filed (para 6).
Case explainer by NyayVidhan: an account of this judgment and the law it laid down, not the court's text. The judgment itself is the authoritative version.
Brief Facts
The appellant's residence was searched on 03.09.2020 on the basis of another person's statement, and phones, pen drives and a box of cigarettes were seized (para 1). A police complaint of 04.09.2020 alleged that she and others organised parties in Bengaluru where drugs were supplied and consumed (para 2). She was arrested and charged under Sections 21, 27A, 27(b) and 29 of the NDPS Act (paras 3, 7). The Sessions Court refused bail under Section 37, citing the total seizure from all accused, and the Karnataka High Court also refused it, relying on the Section 67 statement and the case diary (paras 4-5).
Court's Findings
Nothing at all was recovered in the search of the appellant's premises (para 6). The case against her rested entirely on another person's statement and the case diary, and at the highest showed that she consumed drugs at parties (para 6). The High Court itself had found the conspiracy charge tenuous, and no charge-sheet had been filed (para 6). Though she was charged under Sections 21, 27A and 29, prima facie the only offence that could be made out was consumption under Section 27, punishable with at most one year under Section 27(a) and six months under Section 27(b) (para 7). Section 37 was therefore wrongly invoked by the Sessions Court and the High Court, and with Section 37 out of the way, bail had to follow (para 8). The observations were not to hamper the investigation or be used at trial (para 9), and the connected appellant was granted anticipatory bail on the same reasoning (para 11).
Legal Principle
The Section 37 bar applies only where the material prima facie discloses an offence it covers. Where no drugs are recovered and the material at most shows consumption punishable under Section 27, Section 37 cannot be invoked and bail should follow (paras 7-8).
