“Courts Should Exercise Caution in Granting Bail for Narcotic Offenses," Asserts Supreme Court

In a recent pronouncement, the Supreme Court emphasized the need for caution in granting bail to individuals with criminal antecedents when facing charges related to the recovery of a commercial quantity of narcotic substances under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS Act) [State Rep By Inspector of Police vs B Ramu].

The bench, comprising Justices BR Gavai and Sandeep Mehta, expressed dissatisfaction with a Madras High Court order that had granted anticipatory bail to the accused without establishing prima facie satisfaction under Section 37 of the NDPS Act. This section requires the court to determine that the accused is not guilty of the alleged offense and is unlikely to commit further offenses while on bail.

The accused, found in possession of 233 kilograms of ganja, well exceeding the limit for non-commercial quantity, was granted anticipatory bail by the High Court, subject to paying ₹30,000 as costs to the Tamil Nadu Advocate Clerk Association.

The Supreme Court, taking exception to this approach, remarked, "The condition so imposed by the High Court is alien to the principles governing bail jurisprudence and is nothing short of perversity," while quashing the bail granted to the accused.

The court noted the opposition from the public prosecutor, highlighting the accused's involvement in two similar cases in the past. The bench cited Section 37 of the NDPS Act, emphasizing that in cases involving the recovery of a commercial quantity of narcotics, courts should be circumspect in granting bail to individuals with criminal histories.

The Supreme Court disapproved of the High Court's leniency in granting pre-arrest bail despite the filing of a chargesheet. It emphasized that the chargesheet's filing against the accused and others supported the State's contention that the court could not have established the accused's prima facie innocence.

Consequently, the State's appeal was allowed, and the accused was directed to surrender within ten days.

Senior Additional Advocate General V Krishnamurthy, along with advocates D Kumanan, Deepa, Sheikh F Kalia, and Veshal Tyagi, represented the Tamil Nadu government. Advocates G Sivabalamurugan, Selvaraj Mahendran, C Adhikesavan, SB Kamalanathan, Sumit Singh Rawat, PV Harikrishnan, Karuppaiah Meyyappan, Raghunatha Sethupathy B, Kanika Kalaiyarasan, and Abhishek Kalaiyarasan appeared for the accused.

This ruling underscores the judiciary's commitment to maintaining the integrity of the legal process, especially in cases involving serious offenses, and reinforces the principle that bail decisions must align with established jurisprudential norms.

Author: Anushka Taraniya

News Writer, MIT ADT university