Published on: 11 September 2023 at 11:32 IST
Court: Supreme Court of India
Citation: Union of India V. Ajay Kumar Singh (2023)
Honourable Supreme Court of India has held that Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 states 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.
13. In light of the above, the grant of bail to the above two accused persons – the driver of the vehicle and the helper, does not seem to be a good and sufficient reason for granting bail to the respondent-accused. The above two accused are not the main accused, but the vicarious agents of the respondent-accused, who is the main person in drug trafficking and was involved in the above illegal transactions.
The role of the respondent-accused is clearly different from that of the driver and the helper, the other two co-accused. The co-accused Om Prakash Yadav in his affidavit filed in support of his bail application before the High Court admitted the involvement of the respondent-accused and his role as the mastermind of the illegal trade, as is evident from the order of his release on bail. Therefore, the High Court was not justified in releasing him on bail in the same manner as the above two accused persons.
17. 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. I
n the absence of recording of such satisfaction by the court, we are of the opinion that the High Court manifestly erred in enlarging the respondent-accused on bail.
Drafted By Abhijit Mishra