Case BriefsHigh Courts

Delhi High Court: Siddharth Mridul, J. dismissed an appeal filed under Section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 assailing an order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge whereby the appellant’s bail application was rejected.

The appellant was standing trial under Sections 18, 18-B and 20 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. M.S. Khan and Prashant Prakash, Advocates representing the appellant asserted that he was entitled to be released on bail ex debito justitiae. Per contra, Ravi Nayak, Assistant Public Prosecutor appeared for the State.

At the outset, the High Court observed that relevant provision of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, in relation to grant of bail to an accused person is enunciated as a non-obstante clause, which clearly and unequivocally postulates: “if the Court is of the opinion that, there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accusations against such person are prima facie true, he shall not be released on bail.” Further, the provision stipulates that the restrictions contained in Section 437 (1) CrPC, are also applicable.

The order on charge led the Court to an inescapable conclusion that of a prima facie involvement of the appellant in grave and serious offences which attract a sentence that may extend to imprisonment for life upon conviction. Furthermore, a perusal of the report under Section 173 CrPC filed against the appellant and the circumstance that he was declared a ‘proclaimed offender’ in the present proceedings, as well as, his propensity to furnish fabricated documents, suffice in our view to believe that, he represents a flight risk.

In such view of the matter, no interference with the impugned order was warranted, and consequently, the appeal was dismissed. [Syed Mohd. Zishan Ali v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2019 SCC OnLine Del 8396, decided on 29-04-2019]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Punjab and Haryana High Court: This petition was filed before the Bench of Daya Chaudhary, J., under Section 439 of Criminal Procedure Code for grant of regular bail where FIR was registered under Sections 324, 323, 342, 148, 149, 302 and 365 of Penal Code.

It was submitted by the petitioner that he was falsely implicated in the case where he was not involved in the commission of the alleged offence. The complainant and the eyewitnesses were examined and they did not support the case of the prosecution. Even the post mortem report did not suggest anything which could prove the involvement of the petitioner in the alleged commission of offence. Arguments were advanced stating that the deceased died after he was found in a good condition and discharged from hospital. The fact cannot be ignored that co-petitioner was already released on bail. Whereas respondent contended that petitioner was the main accused thus, should not be released on bail.

High Court was of the view that the bail should be granted and this petition was allowed as the death of the deceased cannot be said to be a result of injuries received by petitioner. [Gursewak Singh v. State of Punjab, 2019 SCC OnLine P&H 415, dated 22-04-2019]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Allahabad High Court: This application was addressed by Ajit Singh, J. which was filed under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding along with the charge sheet arising out of the case filed under Sections 452, 354-K(a), 323, 504, 506 for first applicant and under Ss. 452, 354-K(a), 323, 504, 506 IPC & 3(1)(I)B SC/ST Act for second applicant and cognizance order pending before Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Jhansi.

Applicant contended before the Court that no offence against the applicants was disclosed and that this case was instituted with the malafide intention for harassing the applicants for which applicant had also provided documents and statements supporting his contention.

High Court was of the view that from the materials on record and facts of the case it cannot be said that no offence was made out against the applicants. But since the facts presented are disputed questions of fact, which the Court could not adjudicate under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Therefore, Court refused to quash the entire proceeding of the case and it was directed that in case the applicants appear and surrender before the court below within 30 days from today and applies for bail, their prayer for bail shall be considered. [Sunil Kori v. State of U.P., 2019 SCC OnLine All 2065, Order dated 23-04-2019]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Gujarat High Court: The Bench of Dr A.P. Thaker, J. while enlarging the appellant on bail disposed of a petition since the matter in dispute was already settled by the parties amicably.

In the pertinent matter, the appellant (accused -husband) and the original complainant (wife) got married while they both continued to reside separately at their respective homes and the same was not revealed to their families. Later the parents accepted them and they both were remarried. Subsequently, a complaint was made where it was alleged that the accused persons (in-laws and the husband) started abusing her regarding her caste and tortured her physically and mentally seeking dowry. An FIR was lodged after a 2 months delay to that effect. But later an affidavit was filed acknowledging the fact that the dispute has been amicably settled by the parties and that the complainant has no problem if the appeal is allowed.

The Court after considering the facts, presence of the original complainant and the affidavit so produced, was of the opinion that the husband and wife have amicably settled the dispute and the alleged offence under the provisions of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is not made out. Therefore, considered it to be a fit case to exercise its discretion under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code and thus the bail was granted. [Mauleshbhai Ramanbhai Raval v. State of Gujarat, 2019 SCC OnLine Guj 677, decided on 15-04-2019]

Hot Off The PressNews

MJ Akbar had filed a case against Priya Ramani alleging her of defaming him by leveling the charges of sexual misconduct during the MeToo campaign.

Ramani, who appeared before Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Samar Vishal, however, pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

MJ Akbar had filed a defamation case against her, stating the cause that the article published by Ramani in which she had stated she was sexually harassed by MJ Akbar in the past. Several women had raised their voices in support of Ramani along with the ones who had been the victim of the same.

Patiala House Court will hear the case next on 04-05-2019 and granted permanent exemption to Ms Ramani from personal appearance. She was granted bail on 25-02-2019.

MJ Akbar’s legal team had told the court that Priya Ramani damaged his reputation by levelling “false, wild and baseless allegations”.

[Source: NDTV]


#MeToo | Bail granted to Journalist Priya Ramani in the defamation case filed by MJ Akbar

Hot Off The PressNews

Supreme Court: The 3-judge bench of Ranjan Gogoi, CJ and Deepak Gupta and SK Kaul, JJ has refused to grant bail to Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD) chief Lalu Prasad Yadav in the fodder scam case. Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi told Lalu Prasad Yadav’s lawyer, senior advocate Kapil Sibal.

“We don’t think we will release you on bail,”

When Sibal, on behalf of the RJD Chief, asked “Why?”, the Court said,

“Why? Because you are a convicted man!”

The CBI had, on 09.04.2019, opposed the bail plea of RJD supremo Lalu Prasad Yadav, who is serving jail term in connection with fodder scam cases, saying he is likely to indulge in political activities ahead of Lok Sabha polls. It said that in any case Yadav has been in a hospital ward for over eight months and indulging in political activities.

“During the period in which the petitioner (Lalu Yadav) remained in hospital, he is not only granted a special paying ward with all facilities but he is virtually conducting his political activities from there which would be clear form the list of visitors,”

The agency further said Yadav who claimed to be so unwell that he cannot even remain in jail has now suddenly become physically fit and is seeking bail. It submitted,

“simultaneous raising of pleas for bails on medical grounds and bail to guide the party and to carry out all essential responsibilities as a party president in ensuing Lok Sabha elections are mutually contradictory and manifest that in the garb of bail on medical ground the petitioner in essence wants to pursue his political activities which is impermissible in law,”

The RJD chief, currently lodged in the Birsa Munda Central Jail in Ranchi, has challenged the January 10 verdict of the Jharkhand High Court dismissing his bail plea.

The three cases in which Prasad has been convicted are related to the over Rs 900-crore fodder scam, which pertains to fraudulent withdrawal of money from the treasuries in the Animal Husbandry department in the early 1990s, when Jharkhand was part of Bihar.

(With inputs from PTI)


Also Read

Hot Off The PressNews

Supreme Court:  The bench of SA Bobde and SA Nazeer, JJ has asked the CBI to apprise it of the status of the ongoing trial in a case involving former Congress leader Sajjan Kumar in connection with a 1984 anti-Sikh riots case and listed his bail plea for hearing on April 15.

The CBI told the Bench that Sajjan Kumar, who was a sitting MP in 1984, was the “kingpin” of the massacre of Sikhs in the national capital in 1984.

“This is a gruesome offence of massacre of Sikhs. He was the leader and he was the kingpin of this,”

It was also argued that it would be a “travesty of justice” if Sajjan Kumar is enlarged on bail as he is facing trial in another 1984 anti-Sikh riots case at Patiala House district court here.

The bench said that it would hear on April 15 bail plea of Sajjan Kumar, who was convicted and sentenced to life term by the Delhi High Court in connection with a 1984 anti-Sikh riots case. The case in which Sajjan Kumar was convicted and sentenced relates to the killing of five Sikhs in Delhi Cantonment’s Raj Nagar Part-I area of southwest Delhi on November 1 and 2, 1984, and burning down of a Gurudwara in Raj Nagar Part-II.

Anti-Sikh riots had broken out after the assassination of then prime minister Indira Gandhi on October 31, 1984 by her two Sikh bodyguards.

(Source: PTI)

Case BriefsSupreme Court

Supreme Court: The bench of AM Khanwilkar and Ajay Rastogi, JJ has set aside the order of the Delhi High Court granting bail to Zahoor Watali, a J&K businessman, in a Terror Funding case.

Factual Background

Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali is alleged to have been involved in unlawful acts and terror funding in conspiracy with other accused persons. He has allegedly acted as a conduit for transfer of funds received from terrorist Hafiz Muhammad Saeed, ISI, Pakistan High Commission, New Delhi and also from a source in Dubai, to Hurriyat leaders/secessionists/terrorists; and had helped them in waging war against the Government of India by repeated attacks on security forces and Government establishments and by damaging public property including by burning schools etc.

Designated Court’s order rejecting bail

The Court noticed that the accusation against Watali was of being a part of a larger conspiracy to   systematically upturn the establishment to cause secession of J & K from the Union of India.  Keeping in mind the special provisions in Section 43D of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 it held,

“In view of the above facts and circumstances, the statements of witnesses/material/documents and other material placed on record by NIA, offences as alleged against the accused are prima facie made out. Therefore, in view of the bar under proviso to Section 43D(5) of UA(P) Act,  the accused’s prayer for bail cannot be granted.”

Delhi High Court’s order granting bail

The High Court granted bail to Watali with riders and said,

“The impugned order dated 8th June, 2018 of the trial Court is accordingly set aside. The Appellant is directed to be released on bail subject to his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.2 lakhs with two sureties of like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court”

Factors to be considered in bail application as decided in State of U.P. through CBI Vs. Amarmani Tripathi, (2005) 8 SCC 21

  • whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed the offence;
  • nature and gravity of the charge;
  • severity of the punishment in the event of conviction;
  • danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, if released on bail;
  • character, behaviour, means, position and standing of the accused;
  • likelihood of the offence being repeated; reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with;
  • danger of justice being thwarted by grant of bail.

Ruling

According to the bench, the High Court, in the present case, adopted an inappropriate approach whilst considering the prayer for grant of bail. The High Court ought to have taken into account the totality of the material and evidence on record as it is and ought not to have discarded it as being inadmissible. The High Court clearly overlooked the settled legal position that, at the stage of considering the prayer for bail, it is not necessary to weigh the material, but only form opinion on the basis of the material before it on broad probabilities. The bench said that the Court is expected to apply its mind to ascertain whether the accusations against the accused are prima face true.

It hence, held,

“A fortiori, we deem it proper to reverse the order passed by the High Court granting bail to the respondent. Instead, we agree with the conclusion recorded by the Designated Court that in the facts of the present case, the respondent is not entitled to grant of bail in connection with the stated offences, particularly those falling under Chapters IV and VI of the 1967 Act.”

[National Investigation Agency v. Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali, 2019 SCC OnLine SC 461, decided on 02.04.2019]

Hot Off The PressNews

As reported by media, Nirav Modi, the fugitive diamantaire has been denied bail the second time by Westminster Magistrate’s Court, UK.

Nirav Modi is the prime accused in the PNB Fraud Case.

Chief Magistrate Emma Arbuthnot, stated that  “This is a case of substantial fraud, with a loss to a bank in India of between USD 1-2 billion. I am not persuaded that the conditional bail sought will meet the concerns of the government of India in this case.”

A three-member joint CBI and Enforcement Directorate team from India was present in court and handed over a new file of evidence which was review by the judge before the hearing.

Modi is believed to have been living in the UK on an Investor Visa, applied for in 2015.

He was denied bail at his first hearing soon after his arrest by Scotland Yard officers from a central London bank branch. He is lodged at HMP Wandsworth prison since then.

[Source: Rajya Sabha Tv]


Arrest Warrant against Nirav Modi

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Punjab and Haryana High Court: Three petitions were clubbed together dealing with regular bail in an FIR registered under Section 395 IPC, registered at Police Station Sadar Ludhiana.

The facts leading to this case were that complainant along with five others was having dinner, when the complainant was threatened by petitioner to hand over the amount which they had in their possession. Since then the petitioner were in custody. It was submitted that complainant before giving complaint to the police had allegedly gone out. It was brought before the Court that investigation was complete, challan was presented and charges were framed but the conclusion of the trial would take time.

High Court viewed that State counsel could not dispute the factual position without commenting on the merit of the case. Therefore, these petitions were allowed and they were directed to be released on regular bail. [Saroop Ali v. State of Punjab, 2019 SCC OnLine P&H 290, decided on 25-03-2019]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Patna High Court: The Bench of Vinod Kumar Sinha, J. allowed a criminal appeal granting anticipatory bail to persons who were apprehending their arrest under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

Appellants herein were apprehending their arrest in connection with a police case registered for offences punishable under Sections 147, 341, 323, 354, 504, 506 of the Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Allegation against them was that they arrived, heavily armed, at informant’s house, thrashed his wife, assaulted her and made her semi-naked.

Submission of the learned counsel for the appellants, Mr Ashok Kumar Jha, was that Appellant 1 had filed a title suit pertaining to a land which the defendant (in title suit) tried to sell to the informant. However, the Court granted an injunction in favour of the appellants. Holding the same grudge against appellants, a fabricated police case had been lodged against appellants.

In view of facts and circumstances, the Court allowed the appellants to be released on bail in the event of their arrest, on furnishing a bail bond of Rs 25,000 each with two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Sitamarhi. [Bhikhari SK v. State of Bihar, 2019 SCC OnLine Pat 257, Order dated 27-02-2019]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Madhya Pradesh High Court: This petition was filed before the Bench of Sheel Nagu, J., fourth time under Section 439 of Criminal Procedure Code for grant of bail where the prior bail application were rejected on merit and petitioner was given liberty to come again after the main prosecution witness was examined.

Facts of the case were that petitioner was arrested in connection with crime punishable under Sections 307, 323, 294, 147, 148, 149, 325, 427 IPC and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act. Petitioner was alleged for murder where several police personnel were injured. It was brought before Court that the co-accused was already enlarged on bail and petitioner was in custody for 1 year and 4 months and yet Trial had not progressed.

High Court in light of the fact that the co-accused was already on bail and the time period petitioner had already spent in imprisonment observed that speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution was breached. With a view that Trial will take time to conclude and prolonged pre-trial detention was an anathema to the concept of liberty, the petitioner was granted bail. [Dileep Pardi v. State of M.P., 2019 SCC OnLine MP 425, dated 06-03-2019]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Uttaranchal High Court: The Bench of Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. accepted the application seeking bail where the applicant was a woman and had a 10-year-old daughter.

In the pertinent case the main allegation against the applicant was that she had entered into an agreement for sale with certain agriculturists whose land was under acquisition and as an implication was in conspiracy with public officials, knowing fully well in advance that a huge sum of money will go as a compensation, even though no prudent person would enter into an agreement for sale for a land which is under acquisition. Although the counsel for the applicant contended the land for which the agreement for sale was executed was not the same land, which was under acquisition. And the counsel for the State rebutted by distinguishing it on facts and argued that some of the land indeed was the area which was under acquisition.

The Court without going into the facts contended, granted bail to the applicant, considering the fact that she is a woman and has a 10-year old daughter, who needs to be looked after. Also, the fact that she was already in jail since 21-03-2018, the Court considered it to be a fit case to grant bail. [Priya Sharma v. State of Uttarakhand, 2019 SCC OnLine Utt 138, Order dated 01-03-2019]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Gujarat High Court: The Bench of Vipul M. Pancholi, J. allowed a petition seeking anticipatory bail subject to certain restrictions.

In the pertinent case, the allegations against the accused were of producing forged documents and of abetment. The counsel for the applicant stated that he is ready and willing to abide by all the conditions including the imposition of conditions with regard to powers of Investigating Agency. And considering the nature of the alleged offences, custodial interrogation was not needed at this stage.

The Court considered that the allegation against the applicant is that at the most he has abetted the main accused and there was an undue delay of 5 years in lodging the FIR. And since he is cooperating with the investigation agency, his custodial interrogation is not required. The Court relied on the law laid down by Shri Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 565 and thus, allowed the petition directing the release of the applicant on bail.[Gupta Anandkumar Satyanarayan v. State of Gujarat, 2019 SCC OnLine Guj 285, Order dated 21-02-2019]

Case BriefsForeign Courts

Supreme Court of Pakistan: The Three-Judge Bench of Mian Saqib Nisar, HCJ; Mushir Alam and Ijaz Ul Ahsan, JJ., allowed the petition filed by National Accountability Bureau (NAB) against the order granting bail to a person accused of laundering money in a scheme pertaining to army personnel.

A company – Globaco Pvt. Ltd. – under an arrangement with Defence Housing Authority (DHA) launched a subsidized scheme for army personnel. DHA, Lahore filed a complaint against the company alleging diversion of funds received from the public. NAB started an investigation into the said transaction. During the course of the investigation, it was revealed that respondent was Director in a company Orange Properties Pvt. Ltd., which was the holding company of Globaco Pvt. Ltd.

It was the case of NAB that respondent had enriched himself by diverting colossal sums of money received from the public, into accounts of various companies of which he was, directly and indirectly, the beneficiary. Consequent to his arrest by NAB, the respondent filed a writ petition wherein the learned Judge released him on bail. The said order was assailed by way of present petition.

The Court observed that the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 is a special law enacted with an objective to combat the white-collar crime of high magnitude. All offences under the Ordinance are non-bailable. It was opined that where persons handling the affairs of a corporate entity use a legal attire to carry out any commercial activity and commit any wrong, then NAB has authority to lift the veil of incorporation and trace the mastermind behind such façade. Relying on Nisar Ahmed v. State, 2015 SCC OnLine Pak 136 it was held that powers for the grant of bail in such cases must be exercised strictly.

In view of the above, the impugned order was set aside.[National Accountability Bureau v. Murad Arshad, Civil Petition No. 1707 of 2018, Order dated 22-10-2018]

Hot Off The PressNews

As reported by media, Journalist Priya Ramani appeared in the Patiala House District Court for the defamation case filed by MJ Akbar (Former Union Minister).

Priya Ramani was the first woman to accuse MJ Akbar of sexual allegations during the “#me too” campaign.

MJ Akbar had filed a defamation case against her, stating the cause that the article published by Ramani in which she had stated she was sexually harassed by MJ Akbar in the past. Several women had raised their voices in support of Ramani along with the ones who had been the victim of the same.

Therefore, today on appearance at the Patiala House District Court, Ramani was granted bail with a bond of Rs 10,000 by Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Samar Vishal.
Ramani after the court proceedings gave a statement that “truth is her defence” and after the next date it will be her turn to tell the story.

The next date of hearing is fixed to be 10-04-2019.

[Source: ANI]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Jammu and Kashmir High Court: The Bench of Gita Mittal, CJ and Tashi Rabstan, J. allowed the application filed for seeking suspension of the sentence imposed upon the applicant on the ground that there was no chance of the appeal being heard in the near future.

The facts of the case are that the applicant was booked for the commission of offence under Sections 302/34 RPC and Sections 4/25 of Arms Act. The appellant was convicted for the same by the Trial Court. The order noted that the applicant/appellant had roots in society; his brother was serving in the Indian Army and that the family would facilitate the applicant/appellant in conforming to the societal norms if his sentence was suspended. However, taking into consideration the apprehensions expressed on behalf of the complainant the Court suspended the sentence of applicant/appellant for a period of five weeks to evaluate the conduct of the applicant/appellant while set at liberty. No complaint of any misbehavior was recorded after his release.

The Court while relying on the case of Akhtari Bi v. State of M.P., (2001) 4 SCC 355, upheld that if the appeal is pending for five years and there is no chance of an appeal being heard in near future then in such a case the applicant/appellant should be enlarged on bail. [Naresh Kumar v. State, 2019 SCC OnLine J&K 80, Order dated 29-01-2019]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Gujarat High Court: The Bench of S.H. Vora, J. allowed an appeal under Section 14-A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 whereby the appellant–original accused challenged the order passed by the Sessions Judge, whereby, the  Sessions Judge had refused to grant anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

The Counsel for the respondent stated that the text of the SMS messages between the parties prima facie indicated that there was a commission of offence under the provisions of the said Act and, therefore, no discretionary powers should be exercised against the appellant.

The Court, while relying on the case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694, held that since the substantial investigation was over and no any other offence was registered the appeal should be allowed. [Pratikkumar Rajeshbhai Patel v. State Of Gujarat, 2019 SCC OnLine Guj 137, Order dated 24-01-2019]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Meghalaya High Court: The Bench of H.S. Thangkhiew, J. hearing a bail application filed by an accused under Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, denied grant of bail opining that the accused was a threat to the victim.

First Information Report was lodged against the accused for committing offence punishable under Section 8 of the POCSO Act, 2012. He was in custody since the date of his arrest as successive bail applications filed by him were rejected by the Special Judge.

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the investigation against accused had been completed and hence his further detention was not necessary. Whereas, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that bail should be denied as there were no new facts or materials warranting consideration of grant of bail. Also, the accused was trying to cast undue influence and harassment on the victim by coercing her to enter into a compromise. The said fact of coercion was also recorded in the Special Judge’s order rejecting bail.

The Court opined that normally, after chargesheet is filed, custody of the accused is not needed as the investigation is complete, and since evidence is already collected by the police, there are fewer chances of destruction or concealment of evidence. However, chances of threatening of witnesses may still exist. In the instant case, there was a reasonable apprehension of the witness being tampered with as there were threats to the complainant and the minor victim girl.

It was held that the nature and gravity of circumstances of the offence which involved a minor victim girl under the POCSO Act, and the conduct of accused towards the victim and witnesses weighed against the grant of bail. Accordingly, the present application was rejected.[Sumanta Deka v. State of Meghalaya, 2019 SCC OnLine Megh 1, Order dated 07-01-2019]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Tripura High Court: Appalled at the shocking revelations made in a bail application, the Bench of Sanjay Karol, CJ. asked for a detailed tabulated data on the number of people granted bail under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and the reasons for granting such bail.

While hearing a bail application on behalf of Krishna Kumar, who along with four others were found consciously possessing 298 kilograms of a contraband substance, the Court made the above-mentioned observations. Another accused in the same case, Pritam Roy, was granted ad-interim bail by a Special Judge on humanitarian grounds. During the hearing of the present case, the Director General of Police (Tripura) was also present. Under instructions from the DGP, a statement with regard to the status of the cases under the provision of the NDPS Act and release of the accused persons only for the year 2018 was furnished. According to this statement, 435 out of 660 people against whom a case was registered under the NDPS Act, were granted bail.

When presented with such shocking data, the learned Judge asked for the reason why was it so facile for accused to get bail under the NDPS Act. The Court questioned “the reasons for grant of bail; is it what is commonly termed as a default bail; is it that the Public Prosecutor conceded to the grant of bail; is it that the Public Prosecutors did not oppose the same; is it that the Courts have passed the orders without following the settled principles of law; or is it that innocent stand falsely implicated. If so, then why no action, in accordance with law, stands taken against the erring persons by the authorities?”

The DGP, Tripura was directed to submit a detailed report of all cases registered under NDPS Act in 2018 in the State of Tripura. It was directed that such report should also include the reasons for the grant of bail (if any) among others.[Haricharan Biswas v. State of Tripura, 2019 SCC OnLine Tri 24, Order dated 10-01-2019]