New Delhi: The Supreme Court has quashed a Madras High Court order granting anticipatory bail to an accused in a narcotics case, saying that the condition imposed by the High Court is “totally alien to the principles governing bail jurisprudence” and is “nothing short of perversity”.
A bench of Justices BR Gavai and Sandeep Mehta quashed the anticipatory bail granted to B Ramu in a case related to the recovery of 232.5 kg of ganja. The bench, in a judgement delivered on February 12, said the Madras High Court order is “cryptic and perverse on the face of the record and cannot be sustained. Thus, the same is quashed and set aside”. The apex court directed Ramu to surrender before the trial court within 10 days.
The apex court noted that for entertaining a prayer for bail in a case involving the recovery of commercial quantities of narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances, the court would have to mandatorily record the satisfaction in terms of the rider contained in Section 37 of the NDPS Act.
“Manifestly, a very strange approach has been adopted by the single judge in the impugned order whereby the anticipatory bail was granted to the respondent on the condition that the appellant would deposit a sum of Rs 30,000 to the credit of the registered Tamil Nadu Advocates Clerk Association, Chennai, along with various other conditions”, said the apex court.
Justice Mehta, who authored the judgment on behalf of the bench, said the condition imposed by the High Court is “alien to the principles governing bail jurisprudence and is nothing short of perversity”. Justice Mehta stressed in case of recovery of such a huge quantity of narcotic substance, the courts should be slow in granting even regular bail to the accused. “What to talk of anticipatory bail more so when the accused is alleged to be having criminal antecedents”, he said.
The apex court noted that after investigation, the chargesheet has been filed against the accused, along with other accused persons, fortifying the plea of the state counsel that the court could not have recorded a satisfaction that the accused was prima facie not guilty of the offences alleged.
Citing Section 37 of the NDPS Act, the bench said that it is abundantly clear that when the public prosecutor opposes bail, either regular or anticipatory, the court would have to record satisfaction that there are grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of the offence alleged.
“It is apposite to note that the High Court not only omitted to record any such satisfaction, but has rather completely ignored the factum of recovery of narcotic substance (ganja), multiple times the commercial quantity”, said the bench.
The bench added that the High Court also failed to consider the fact that the accused has criminal antecedents and was already arraigned in two previous cases under the NDPS Act. In 2021, a case was filed in the Erode district upon search of the house of Brinda and Kesavan and, both were found to have 232.5 kg ganja. Ramu was indicted as being the conspirator for procurement and supply of the recovered ganja.
- " class="align-text-top noRightClick twitterSection" data="">
Read More
Officials Have No Authority To Issue No Caste No Religion Certificate': Madras HC
