SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Before:- Y.K. Sabharwal and H.K. Sema, JJ.

Criminal Appeal No. 716 of 2002 Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 3437 of 2001. D/d. 19.7.2002.

Union of India - Appellant

Versus

Ashok Kumar Jaiswal - Respondent

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Sections 37, 8 and 21 - Bail - Requirements under Section 37 must be complied with by the Court before granting the bail - High Court erred in granting bail to respondent bail to respondent in a casual manner without any justifiable reason and without satisfying the provisions of Section 37 as it stood when the impugned order was passed - Fresh application for bail, if filed would be dealt with in accordance with law.

[Paras 3 to 5]

Cases Referred :-

Union of India v. Ram Samujh, (1999) 9 SCC 429 .

Narcotics Control Bureau, Chennai v. R. Paulsamy, (2000) 9 SCC 549 .

ORDER

Y.K. Sabharwal, J. - Leave granted.

2. The respondent is charged for offences under Sections 8 and 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (in short "the Act"). By the impugned order of the High Court which is under challenge in this appeal, the respondent has been granted bail. The relevant part of the order reads as under:

"Heard.

Considering the recovery and detention, it is a fit case for bail. The bail application is allowed."

3. It is evident that the High Court did not at all take into consideration the requirements of Section 37 of the Act as it stood when the application of the respondent for grant of bail was allowed and bail was granted to him merely observing that "considering the recovery and detention it is a fit case for bail". The legislature with a view to check the menace of drugs incorporated in the Act the stringent provisions of Section 37 for considering prayer for grant of bail of those who are accused of offence punishable for a term of imprisonment of five years or more under the Act. Under the mandatory conditions provided in Section 37 before granting bail the court is to be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of offence and that he is not likely to commit offences under the Act while on bail. This Court in various judgments while quashing the orders granting bail to accused of offence under the Act have cautioned the courts about the mandatory requirements of Section 37 (Union of India v. Ram Samujh, (1999) 9 SCC 429 and Narcotics Control Bureau, Chennai v. R. Paulsamy, (2000) 9 SCC 549 ).

4. In the impugned order the bail has been granted to the respondent in a casual manner without any justifiable reason and without satisfying the provisions of Section 37 as the same stood when the impugned order was passed. The impugned order is, therefore, unsustainable.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent, however, sought to rely on Section 37 as amended on 9-5-2001. The impugned order was passed before the amendment i.e. on 2-3-2001. In this state of affairs learned counsel for the respondent fairly concedes that the impugned order could not be legally passed without complying with the provisions of Section 37 as it stood on the date when the impugned order was passed. Learned counsel further submits that a fresh application for grant of bail, in view of the amendment of Section 37 as aforesaid, will be filed by the respondent. We express no opinion on the aspect of applicability or otherwise of the amended provision to the facts of this case. Suffice it to observe that as and when fresh application is filed, it will be dealt with in accordance with law.

6. For the aforesaid reasons the appeal is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. The bail bonds are cancelled and the respondent is directed to be taken into custody forthwith.

Appeal allowed.