Judgment Intelligence
Bail Cancelled- Court
- Supreme Court of India
- Date of Decision
- 22 September 2021
- Bench
- Justice Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud and Justice B V Nagarathna
- Relevant Acts & Sections
- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — Sections 8, 21, 27A, 29, 37, 42, 50, 54, 67
Appeal allowed. The High Court's bail order of 01.10.2020 is set aside, the bail application is dismissed and the respondent must surrender forthwith (paras 33-34).
Source Supreme Court of India, www.sci.gov.in — judgment dated 22.09.2021
Key holdings
- Reasonable grounds under Section 37(1)(b)(ii) means more than prima facie grounds: substantial probable causes for believing the accused is not guilty (para 19).
- The absence of contraband on the accused's person does not dispense with the Section 37 scrutiny when it is concealed in the vehicle he travels in (para 25).
- A confessional statement under Section 67 of the NDPS Act is inadmissible in evidence, as held in Tofan Singh (paras 8, 26).
- Whether Section 42 was complied with is a question of fact; delayed compliance with a satisfactory explanation is acceptable (paras 27-28).
- A bail order that ignores material circumstances and the gravity of the offence is unsustainable (paras 31-32).
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
Court's Findings
Legal Principle
Precedents Relied Upon
- Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu (2021) 4 SCC 1
A confessional statement recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act is inadmissible in evidence.
- Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee (2010) 14 SCC 496
This Court does not normally interfere with a High Court's bail order, but the discretion must be exercised judiciously on settled factors such as the prima facie case, gravity of the accusation, severity of punishment and risk of absconding.
- Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar @ Polla & Anr. (2020) 2 SCC 118
A bail order passed without due application of mind or in disregard of relevant factors and the prima facie record is liable to be set aside by an appellate court.
View all precedents (12)
- Prabhakar Tewari v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2020) 11 SCC 648
Followed the dual test in Mahipal for setting aside a bail order.
- Union of India v. Shiv Shanker Kesari (2007) 7 SCC 798
"Reasonable grounds" in Section 37(1)(b)(ii) means more than prima facie grounds; bail granted without adhering to Section 37 may be cancelled.
- Union of India v. Prateek Shukla (2021) 5 SCC 430
Non-application of mind to the rival submissions and to the seriousness of an NDPS accusation is a ground for cancelling bail.
- Madan Lal and Another v. State of Himachal Pradesh (2003) 7 SCC 465
Conscious possession is determined on the facts; once possession is established, the person claiming it was not conscious must show it, and Sections 35 and 54 raise presumptions.
- Dharampal Singh v. State of Punjab (2010) 9 SCC 608
Knowledge of possession is gleaned from the facts; the standard differs between a public vehicle with many passengers and a private vehicle with a few persons known to one another.
- Mohan Lal v. State of Rajasthan (2015) 6 SCC 222
Possession may mean physical possession or custody with animus, dominion and control through concealment, or knowledge of the contraband with intention based on it.
- Union of India v. Rattan Mallik (2009) 2 SCC 624
Bail was cancelled where the High Court held that contraband in a cavity above a truck's cabin was not in the accused's possession; a finding on possession alone does not satisfy Section 37(1)(b).
- Karnail Singh v. State of Haryana (2009) 8 SCC 539
Writing down information and informing the superior under Section 42 should normally precede the search, but delayed compliance with a satisfactory explanation is acceptable; compliance is a question of fact.
- Boota Singh v. State of Haryana 2021 SCC OnLine SC 324
Recently followed Karnail Singh on Section 42 compliance.
