Judgment Intelligence
Bail Cancelled
State of Kerala etc. v. Rajesh etc.
2020 INSC 88
Criminal Appeal Nos. 154-157 of 2020 (arising out of SLP (Crl.) Nos. 7309-7312 of 2019)
- Court
- Supreme Court of India
- Date of Decision
- 24 January 2020
- Bench
- Justices Indu Malhotra and Ajay Rastogi
- Relevant Acts & Sections
- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — Sections 20, 29, 37; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Sections 439, 482
Final Outcome
Appeals allowed. The High Court's bail orders are set aside, the respondents' bail bonds are cancelled and they are to be taken into custody; the trial court is directed to proceed with and expedite the trial (para 26).
Source Supreme Court of India, www.sci.gov.in — judgment dated 24.01.2020
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
In one case, 10.202 kg of hashish oil and Rs 13,50,000 in cash were seized from three accused on 25.05.2018, and a respondent was alleged to have entrusted the oil to them for sale in the international market (para 4). In the other, the same respondent and another accused respondent were found with 1.800 kg of hashish oil on 25.10.2018 (para 7). Hashish oil above 1 kg is a commercial quantity (para 17). The Sessions Courts refused bail, but on 10.05.2019 the High Court granted it, noting bail to co-accused and 195 days in custody (paras 5-7). On 12.06.2019 it held that it could not recall those orders under Section 482 CrPC (para 9).
Court's Findings
Bail under the NDPS Act is subject both to the limits in Section 439 CrPC and to the twin conditions of Section 37: the prosecutor must be heard, and the court must be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing the accused is not guilty and is not likely to offend on bail; if either fails, the bar operates (paras 18, 20). Following Ram Samujh, that legislative mandate must be adhered to (para 19). Reasonable grounds mean more than prima facie grounds: substantial probable causes for believing the accused not guilty (para 21). The High Court overlooked the object of Section 37 and failed to record the finding it mandates, which is a sine qua non for bail (paras 21-22). Bail to co-accused does not free a respondent from the rigour of Section 37 (para 23). The claim of false implication, linked to an excise official's corruption conviction, was only a conjecture, especially as charge-sheets had been filed and the respondents could raise it at the stage of charge (para 24). The High Court had itself prima facie accepted, while refusing to recall its orders, that an error had been committed (para 25).
Legal Principle
Under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, bail in a commercial-quantity case requires the court to record its satisfaction that there are reasonable grounds, meaning more than prima facie grounds, for believing the accused is not guilty and is not likely to offend on bail. Bail to co-accused does not displace this requirement (paras 20-23).
Precedents Relied Upon
Union of India v. Ram Samujh and Ors. 1999(9) SCC 429
Relied Upon · Discussed at ¶ 19
The Section 37 mandate must be adhered to: an accused under the NDPS Act is not to be released on bail during trial unless its conditions are satisfied, and a High Court must give reasons for not abiding by it.
Satpal Singh v. State of Punjab 2018(13) SCC 813
Referred To · Discussed at ¶ 12
Relied on by the State for the submission that the Section 37 conditions are in addition to the CrPC limitations and a liberal approach to bail under the NDPS Act is uncalled for.
