{"id":254886,"date":"2021-09-29T18:00:48","date_gmt":"2021-09-29T12:30:48","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=254886"},"modified":"2021-09-30T18:05:46","modified_gmt":"2021-09-30T12:35:46","slug":"explained-law-on-grant-on-bail-in-ndps-cases","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/09\/29\/explained-law-on-grant-on-bail-in-ndps-cases\/","title":{"rendered":"Explained| Law on grant on bail in NDPS cases"},"content":{"rendered":"

Supreme Court<\/strong>: The bench of Dr. DY Chandrachud*<\/strong> and BV Nagarathna, JJ has elaborately discussed the principles governing the grant of bail, especially in cases under the NDPS Act and has held that,<\/p>\n

\n

\u201c\u2026 the test which the High Court and this Court are required to apply while granting bail is whether there are reasonable grounds to believe that the accused has not committed an offence and whether he is likely to commit any offence while on bail. Given the seriousness of offences punishable under the NDPS Act and in order to curb the menace of drug-trafficking in the country, stringent parameters for the grant of bail under the NDPS Act have been prescribed.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Under Section 37(1)(b)(ii), the limitations on the grant of bail for offences punishable under Sections 19, 24 or 27A and also for offences involving a commercial quantity are :<\/p>\n

    \n
  1. The Prosecutor must be given an opportunity to oppose the application for bail; and<\/li>\n
  2. There must exist \u2018reasonable grounds to believe\u2019 that<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    (a) the person is not guilty of such an offence; and<\/p>\n

    (b) he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.<\/p>\n

    Important rulings<\/strong><\/span><\/h4>\n

    Union of India v. Shiv Shanker Kesar<\/em><\/span>, (2007) 7 SCC 798<\/a><\/strong><\/h4>\n

    Holding that bail may be cancelled if it has been granted without adhering to the parameters under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, the Court observed,<\/p>\n

    \n

    \u201c7. The expression used in Section 37(1)(b)(ii) is \u201creasonable grounds\u201d. The expression means something more than prima facie grounds. It connotes substantial probable causes for believing that the accused is not guilty of the offence charged and this reasonable belief contemplated in turn points to existence of such facts and circumstances as are sufficient in themselves to justify recording of satisfaction that the accused is not guilty of the offence charged.<\/p>\n

    8. The word \u201creasonable\u201d has in law the prima facie meaning of reasonable in regard to those circumstances of which the actor, called on to act reasonably, knows or ought to know. It is difficult to give an exact definition of the word \u201creasonable\u201d.<\/p>\n

    [\u2026]<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

    10. The word \u201creasonable\u201d signifies \u201cin accordance with reason\u201d. In the ultimate analysis it is a question of fact, whether a particular act is reasonable or not depends on the circumstances in a given situation. (See Municipal Corpn. of Greater Mumbai v. Kamla Mills Ltd. [(2003) 6 SCC 315]<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

    11. The court while considering the application for bail with reference to Section 37 of the Act is not called upon to record a finding of not guilty. It is for the limited purpose essentially confined to the question of releasing the accused on bail that the court is called upon to see if there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty and records its satisfaction about the existence of such grounds. But the court has not to consider the matter as if it is pronouncing a judgment of acquittal and recording a finding of not guilty.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

    Union of India v. Prateek Shukla<\/span><\/em>, (2021) 5 SCC 430<\/a><\/strong><\/h4>\n

    Non-application of mind to the rival submissions and the seriousness of the allegations involving an offence under the NDPS Act by the High Court are grounds for cancellation of bail.<\/p>\n

    Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee<\/em><\/span>, (2010) 14 SCC 496<\/a><\/strong><\/h4>\n
    \n

    \u201c9. \u2026 this Court does not, normally, interfere with an order passed by the High Court granting or rejecting bail to the accused. However, it is equally incumbent upon the High Court to exercise its discretion judiciously, cautiously and strictly in compliance with the basic principles laid down in a plethora of decisions of this Court on the point. It is well settled that, among other circumstances, the factors to be borne in mind while considering an application for bail are:<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n