Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2008 (5) TMI 654

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 2. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows: On 17.1.2000 the appellant received information in writing from a casual source that a Tata truck bearing registration No.MN-5113 carrying ganga would be proceeding from Imphal area towards Guwahati in the early hours of 18.1.2000. It was immediately reported by the appellant to its superior officer i.e. Superintendent, NCB, RU, Imphal, who issued order to the appellant to take necessary action. The appellant along with other members of staff of the NCB led by the Superintend kept vigil along the Imphal- Ukhrul road and started checking of vehicles. Around 7.00 a.m. on 18.1.2000 a Tata truck was seen approaching the road. The said vehicle was intercepted and stopped by the appellant .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Court. By the impugned order, the same was rejected. The High Court noted that attendance of the accused can be secured by means of bail bonds already signed. He may be allowed the respondent to remain on bail in order to enable him to have adequate consultation with the lawyer of his choice. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the parameters of Section 37 have not been kept in view by the trial Court and High Court. Learned counsel for the respondent supported the order. 4. Section 37 of the Act reads as follows: 37. Offences to be cognizable and non-bailable. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), - (a) Every offence punishable under this Act shall he co .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Collector of Customs, New Delhi v. Ahmadalieva Nodira (2004 (3) SCC 549) it was noted at page 552 as follows: 6. As observed by this Court in Union of India v. Thamisharasi clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 37 imposes limitations on granting of bail in addition to those provided under the Code. The two limitations are: (1) an opportunity to the Public Prosecutor to oppose the bail application, and (2) satisfaction of the court that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. 7. The limitations on granting of bail come in only when the question of granting bail arises on merits. Apart from the grant of opportunity to .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ged of the offences punishable under Sections 8/21/29/60 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 before the Court of Special Judge, Lucknow. His application for grant of bail was rejected by the Special Judge by assigning reasons therefor. Further application being made to the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, the High Court without considering the mandatory requirement of Section 37 of the Act and without coming to the prima facie conclusion that there was no material against the respondent to convict him for the charges alleged against him mechanically proceeded to grant the bail. This Court in the case of Supdt., Narcotics Control Bureau v. R. Paulsamy (2000) 9 SCC 549, has held that in matters arising out of the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Prosecutor opposes the bail application, Section 37 will not apply. Mr Singh seriously contended that inasmuch as the appellant have not put on record that the Public Prosecutor had opposed the granting of bail it must be presumed that this is an order covered under Section 37(3) read with Section 439 CrPC. To say the least, the argument appears to be baseless. We cannot accept the contention that in a matter involving seizure of commercial quantity of a substance prohibited by the NDPS Act when the Public Prosecutor appears on notice of the bail application he would be standing there as a mute spectator not opposing the bail application unless he was at the beck of the accused. We find no substance in this argument. In our view, the very .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates