Judgment Intelligence
OtherUnion of India v. Rattan Mallik @ Habul
Criminal Appeal No. 137 of 2009 (arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 1057 of 2008); reported as (2009) 2 SCC 624
- Court
- Supreme Court of India
- Date of Decision
- 23 January 2009
- Bench
- Justices D.K. Jain and R.M. Lodha
- Relevant Acts & Sections
- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — Sections 8, 27A, 29, 37; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 439; Constitution of India — Article 136
Final Outcome
The appeal was allowed and the bail application was remitted to the High Court for fresh consideration under Section 37, to be taken up only after the respondent surrendered within two weeks, failing which the High Court was to take steps for his arrest (paras 16-17).
Key holdings
- The bail provisions of a special statute such as the NDPS Act cannot be ignored when deciding bail or suspension of sentence (para 11).
- Section 37's twin conditions are cumulative, and satisfaction on both is a sine qua non for bail (para 13).
- ‘Reasonable grounds’ means more than prima facie grounds: substantial probable causes for believing the accused not guilty (para 13).
- The court does not record a finding of ‘not guilty’; its satisfaction is for the limited purpose of bail (para 14).
- Three years in custody, an unlikely early hearing and nothing found on the accused did not satisfy Section 37 (para 15).
Brief Facts
The prosecution case was that the respondent was involved in financing and trading in 14.900 kg of heroin recovered from a specially made cavity above the cabin of a truck (para 4). The trial court convicted him and sentenced him to ten years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1 lac under each of Sections 27A and 29 of the NDPS Act (para 4). On 13.11.2006 the Allahabad High Court suspended the sentence and granted bail pending his appeal, because nothing was found from his possession, he had been in jail since 5.9.2003, and the appeal was unlikely to be heard within seven years (paras 3, 5-6). The Union of India appealed (para 7).
Court's Findings
The High Court had lost sight of the mandatory requirements of Section 37, making its order "clearly unsustainable" (para 10). Where a conviction is under a special statute with specific bail provisions, those provisions cannot be ignored (para 11). Under Section 37(1)(b) and (2), the power to grant bail is subject both to Section 439 CrPC and to Section 37; besides hearing the Public Prosecutor, the twin conditions must be satisfied, and "the conditions are cumulative and not alternative" (para 13). Relying on Shiv Shanker Kesari, the Court said 'reasonable grounds' means "something more than prima facie grounds", and that recording satisfaction on both aspects is "sine qua non for granting of bail under the NDPS Act" (para 13). The court need not record a finding of ‘not guilty’ or weigh the evidence meticulously; the satisfaction is confined to bail (para 14). The High Court's three reasons "may be relevant" in Indian Penal Code cases but did not meet Section 37, and its remark that nothing was found from the respondent's possession was not the required satisfaction (para 15).
Legal Principle
When a sentence under the NDPS Act is suspended pending appeal, the court must record satisfaction on both Section 37(1)(b) conditions: reasonable grounds, more than prima facie, for believing the accused not guilty, and that he is not likely to offend on bail. Length of custody and appeal delay alone do not suffice (paras 13-15).
Precedents Relied Upon
- Dadu alias Tulsidas v. State of Maharashtra (2000) 8 SCC 437
Relied on by the Union of India (three-Judge Bench) for the proposition that suspension of sentence by the appellate court has to be within the parameters of law prescribed by the Legislature.
- Union of India v. Shiv Shanker Kesari (2007) 7 SCC 798
‘Reasonable grounds’ under Section 37 means something more than prima facie grounds: substantial probable causes for believing that the accused is not guilty of the offence charged.
