Jagjeet Singh@Jagga v. State Of Punjab

Recently, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in "State By The Inspector of Police v. B. Ramu", 2024(1) Law Herald (SC) 366, observed as under: - "6. From the order reproduced supra, it is apparent that the learned Single Judge totally ignored the submission of the Public Prosecutor that the respondent-accused was arraigned in three more previous cases (two of which involve offence under the NDPS Act). Furthermore, the learned Single Judge also totally ignored the fact that the recovered ganja was well in excess of the commercial quantity as provided in the schedule to the NDPS Act.

7. During the course of submissions, learned counsel for the respondent vehemently and fervently contended that during the intervening period, the matter has progressed much ahead inasmuch as the investigation has been concluded and chargesheet has been filed. Now the matter is posted for framing of charges against the accused.

8. Section 37 of the NDPS Act deals with bail to the accused charged in connection with offence involving commercial quantity of a narcotic drug or psychotropic substance. The provision is reproduced hereinbelow for the sake of ready

reference:- "[37. Offences to be cognizable and nonbailable.-(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974),- (a) every offence punishable under this Act shall be cognizable;

(b) no person accused of an offence punishable for [offences under Section 19 or Section 24 or Section 27A and also for offences involving commercial quantity] shall be released on bail or on his own bond unless- (i) the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the application for such release, and (ii) where the Public Prosecutor opposes the application, the court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.

(2) The limitations on granting of bail specified in clause (b) of sub-section (1) are in addition to the limitations under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), or any other law for the time being in force on granting of bail]"

9. A plain reading of statutory provision makes it abundantly clear that in the event, the Public Prosecutor opposes the prayer for bail either regular or anticipatory, as the case may be, the Court would have to record a satisfaction that there are grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of the offence alleged and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.

10. 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. 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.

11. 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.

12. For entertaining a prayer for bail in a case involving recovery of commercial quantity of narcotic drug or psychotropic substance, the Court would have to mandatorily record the satisfaction in terms of the rider contained in Section 37 of the NDPS Act..."