TMI Blog2020 (12) TMI 1292X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion of deposit of the alleged amount involved can be imposed. Imposing such condition while releasing the accused on default bail/statutory bail would frustrate the very object and purpose of default bail under Section 167(2), Cr.P.C. The provisions of Section 167 (2) would apply to the accused arrested under the provisions of the ND PS Act - petitioner shall be released on default bail provided he is ready to furnish PR bond to the satisfaction of the Special Judge, ND PS, Manipur - Bail application allowed. - CRIL. PETN. No. 28 of 2020 - - - Dated:- 21-12-2020 - HON BLE MR. JUSTICE KH. NOBIN SINGH For the Petitioner : Smt. H. Bisheshwari, Advocate For the Respondent : Shri Y. Ashang, GA JUDGMENT Kh. Nobin Singh, J. 1. Heard Smt. H. Bisheshwari, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner and Shri Y. Ashang, learned PP for the State respondents. 2. The validity and correctness of the order dated 31-08-2020 passed by the Special Judge (NDPS), Manipur in Cril. Misc. (B) Case No. 212 of 2020 is under challenge in this petition. 3.1. According to the petitioner, 01-03-2020 at about 8.50 pm, he was returning from Moreh toward his village b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... During the course of the hearing, it has been vehemently submitted by Smt. H. Bisheshwari, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the issue involved herein has already been decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 15-10-2020 in Saravanan Vs. State represented by the Inspector of Police, Criminal Appeal No. 681-682 of 2020 and therefore, the instant petition is liable to be allowed by this Court. On the contrary, it has been submitted by Shri Y. Ashang, the learned PP that the said decision has not been rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in an issue arising out of the provisions of the ND PS Act, for which he has relied upon the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India Vs. Thamisharasi ors, (1995) 4 SCC 190. 7. On perusal of the said decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Saravanan (supra), the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner appears to be correct. The issue involved therein was whether while releasing the appellant accused therein on default bail/statutory bail under Section 167 (2) CR.P.C., any condition of deposit of amount as imposed by the High Court, could have been impose ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d for investigation/interrogation and on non-cooperation, the consequences including cancellation of the shall follow. 8. It may be noted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has decided only the issue relating to the release of an accused on default bail/statutory bail under Section 167 (2) Cr.P.C. irrespective of the nature of the offence alleged to have been committed by the accused. In other words, the provisions of Section 167 (2) Cr.P.C. have been construed to mean that no other condition of deposit of alleged amount can be imposed. The decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Thamisharasi (supra) does not help the learned PP appearing for the respondents at all, rather it has helped the case of the petitioner. In Thamisharasi also, it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that Section 167 (2) has been expressly applied by Section 36-A of the NP PS Act, the scheme of which is that the provisions of the Cr.P.C. would apply except where there is any inconsistent provision in the ND PS Act in relation to the arrest made under the Act. The relevant paragraphs of the said decision read as under: 8. Section 36-A makes it clear that a person accused o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s Act to be cognizable. Clause (b) imposes limitations on granting of bail specified therein which are in addition to the limitations under the Code of Criminal Procedure on granting of bail as stated in sub-section (2) of Section 37. Clause (b) of sub-section (1) specifies the two limitations on granting of bail, namely, (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. The learned Additional Solicitor General contends that these limitations on granting of bail specified in clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 37 indicate that the applicability of the proviso to subsection (2) of Section 167 CrPC is excluded in such cases. We are unable to accept this contention. 10. The limitations on granting of bail specified in clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 37 come in only when the question of granting bail arises on merits. By its very nature the provision is not attracted when the grant of bail is automatic on account of the default in filing the complaint wi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rding to Section 37 of the NDPS Act, the accused shall not be released on bail unless the court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence....... . The requirement of reasonable grounds for belief in the guilt of the accused to refuse bail is more stringent and, therefore, more beneficial to the accused than the requirement of reasonable grounds for the belief that he is not guilty of the offence under Section 37 of the NDPS Act. Under Section 437 CrPC, the burden is on the prosecution to show the existence of reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is guilty while under Section 37 of the Act the burden is on the accused to show the existence of reasonable grounds for the belief that he is not guilty of the offence. In the first case, the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused is displaced only on the prosecution showing the existence of reasonable grounds to believe that the accused is guilty while under the NDPS Act it is the accused who has to show that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty. 9. In view of the above, this Court is of the view that the issue involved herein ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
