Bail Order That Only Records Submissions Ignores Section 37 NDPS: Supreme Court Cancels Bail in Acetic Anhydride Case

Acting on information that a company had bought large quantities of acetic anhydride and not filed quarterly returns, NCB officers searched its registered office in Noida in October 2018 and allegedly found acetic anhydride and amphetamine; about 9,650 kg of acetic anhydride was allegedly recovered from a godown in Ghaziabad (para 4). The respondent, alleged to be a director of the company, was arrested and charged under Sections 8, 9A, 25A, 23 and 29 as part of an international syndicate (paras 4-5). The Sessions Court refused bail, but the High Court granted it in May 2019 (para 6). He claimed he had resigned as director before the purchases (para 9).

The High Court's reasons were only that the respondent, prima facie, may not be guilty, had a clean past and, holding a B.Tech degree, may not commit any offence in future (para 10). Merely recording the parties' submissions is not a judicial application of mind; Section 37 lays down the legal norms for bail, and the order showed no awareness of them or of the seriousness of the NDPS allegations (para 11). The resignation plea had to be assessed against the complaint, which relied on the Registrar of Companies' report that the respondent was a director, and he had told the High Court that he transferred 99% of his shares to an Afghan co-accused; his bail application and counter affidavit suppressed more than they disclosed (paras 11-12). Treating his education as a reason he may not reoffend was an extraneous circumstance (para 12).