Calcutta HC: Award May Be Set Aside if Tribunal Rewrites Contract or Ignores Key Clauses  ||  Delhi HC Suspends Kuldeep Singh Sengar’s Life Term, Holding Section 5(C) of POCSO Not Made Out  ||  Calcutta High Court: Arbitration Clause in an Expired Lease Cannot be Invoked For a Fresh Lease  ||  Delhi High Court: 120-Day Timeline under Section 132B Of Income Tax Act is Not Mandatory  ||  NCLAT Reaffirms That Borrower's Debt Acknowledgment Also Extends Limitation Period for Guarantors  ||  NCLAT: Oppression & Mismanagement Petition Cannot Be Filed Without Company Membership on Filing Date  ||  Supreme Court Quashes Rajasthan Village Renaming, Says Government Must Follow its Own Policy  ||  NCLAT: NCLT Can Order Forensic Audit on its Own, No Separate Application Required  ||  NCLAT Reiterates That IBC Cannot be Invoked as a Recovery Tool for Contractual Disputes  ||  Delhi HC: DRI or Central Revenues Control Lab Presence in Delhi Alone Does Not Confer Jurisdiction    

Union of India (UOI) vs. Ajay Kumar Singh - (Supreme Court) (28 Mar 2023)

No person, accused of an offence involving trade in commercial quantity of narcotics, is liable to be released on bail

MANU/SC/0316/2023

Narcotics

The Appellant-Union of India has preferred present appeal against the final judgment and order passed by the High Court allowing Bail Application and directing for the release of the Respondent-accused on bail. The Respondent-accused is alleged to be involved in Case arising out of Case under Sections 8/20/27-A/29/32 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act).

The High Court, in passing the impugned order of bail, had lost sight of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, which, inter alia, provides that no person accused of an offence involving commercial quantity shall be released on bail unless the twin conditions laid down therein are satisfied, namely,(i)the public prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the bail application; and (ii) the court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such an offence and that he is not likely to commit any such offence while on bail.

No person accused of an offence involving trade in commercial quantity of narcotics is liable to be released on bail unless the court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such an offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.

The quantity of “ganja” recovered is admittedly of commercial quantity. The High Court has not recorded any finding that the Respondent-accused is not prima facie guilty of the offence alleged and that he is not likely to commit the same offence when enlarged on bail rather his antecedents are indicative that he is a regular offender. In the absence of recording of such satisfaction by the court, the High Court manifestly erred in enlarging the respondent-accused on bail.

In view of the facts and circumstances and considering the role assigned to the Respondent- accused and the illegality committed in releasing him on bail, present Court set aside the impugned final order passed by the High Court. Appeal allowed.

Tags : BAIL   GRANT   DIRECTIONS  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2025 - All Rights Reserved