No Parity Under Section 37: Supreme Court Cancels NDPS Anticipatory Bail Granted Without Recording Statutory Satisfaction

The appellant was accused in an FIR of 11.06.2017 under Sections 22 and 29 of the NDPS Act, involving a reportedly commercial quantity (paras 2, 15). A High Court bench had granted anticipatory bail to two co-accused on 21.09.2017 without reference to Section 37; on 04.10.2017 another bench refused the appellant's plea for parity (para 2). Only after repeated directions of the Supreme Court did the State appeal against the co-accused's bail (paras 5-8). Meanwhile the Sessions Court, acting on the High Court's interim order, had released the co-accused on regular bail on 31.10.2017 (paras 10-13).

The High Court rightly refused anticipatory bail: there is no question of parity in bail, and the order relied on had ignored Section 37 (para 2). In a commercial-quantity case, the prosecutor must be heard and the court must be satisfied, on the materials and the accused's antecedents, that there are reasonable grounds for believing the accused not guilty and unlikely to offend on bail (paras 3-4). The co-accused's order made no reference to Section 37 and recorded no such satisfaction, so it was set aside (para 15). The Sessions Court acted casually in granting regular bail on an interim order without checking whether the matter had been finally disposed of (para 13). Protection under Section 438 lasts only until the court summons the accused on the charge-sheet; regular bail under Section 439 must then be considered on its own merits (para 14). The Court also faulted the State's lackadaisical approach and reminded the police and prosecutors to show diligence in NDPS cases (paras 9, 16).