Courts Should Not Forget Limitation Under Section 17 Of NDPS Act In Addition To The Ones Prescribed In CrPC: Tripura HC Reiterates
The Tripura High Court has reiterated that the courts should not forget the limitations under Section 37 of the NDPS (Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances) Act in addition to the limitations prescribed in CrPC.
The Court was deciding an application filed under Section 439(2) read with Section 482 CrPC for recalling or cancelling the order of bail passed in connection with a case registered under Sections 22(C)/25/29 of the NDPS Act by the Special Judge wherein the accused/respondents were enlarged on bail.
A Single Bench of Justice Arindam Lodh said, “At this juncture, I must say, as I said earlier, the Courts should not forget the limitations under Section 37 of the NDPS Act in addition to the limitations prescribed in Cr.P.C. … In the context of the case, it is found that after being enlarged on bail two of the accused, namely, Mahabul Alam and Jahir Miah had abused the benefit of liberty granted by the Court by way of allowing their applications for bail. The accused-respondents were found to be involved in two other cases registered under different police stations during the period of bail.”
The Bench noted that the Special Judge while releasing the accused/respondents on bail was totally misdirected and misread the provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act.
Addl. PP S. Debnath appeared on behalf of the State/applicant while Advocates J. Bhattacharjee and Sajib Ghosh appeared on behalf of the accused/respondents.
Facts of the Case -
The grounds taken in the application for cancellation of bail by the applicant-State of Tripura were firstly, that violation of procedure embodied under the provisions of the NDPS Act was not to be considered during the course of granting bail to the accused-respondents arrested under the penal provisions of NDPS Act and secondly, the accused-respondents were habitual offenders found to be involved in the trading of illicit psychotropic substances.
It was submitted that one of the accused persons after being released on bail was arrested twice in connection with two other cases and was in the custody while the co-accused were arrested. It was strenuously argued that while granting bail to the accused/respondents, the Special Judge could not consider the parameters of granting bail as embodied under Section 37 of the NDPS Act. It was further argued that in cases of NDPS Act and UAPA Act, bail is not a rule but an exception.
The High Court after considering the above submissions made by the counsel observed, “… it is abundantly clear, that the Courts while considering the application for bail must strictly adhere to the two conditions embodied in Section 37 of the NDPS Act, and must record its reason of satisfaction that there are substantial probable causes for believing that the accused is not guilty of committing such offence and that there is no likelihood of repetition of committing such offence by the accused while on bail. It is re-iterated that while considering the bail application filed by the accused arrested under the penal provisions of the NDPS Act, learned Special Judges should be confined within the limits embodied in Section 37 of the NDPS Act.”
The Court added that the procedural violations, if any, shall be taken into consideration during the course of trial, and not at the stage of consideration of bail application.
“As I said earlier, learned Special Judge did not consider at all the twin conditions as embodied in Section 37 of the NDPS Act and released the accused-respondents on bail on erroneous conception that since there was procedural violations/irregularities, the accused-respondents were entitled to get the benefit of bail”, said the Court.
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the application and directed the accused to surrender before the Special Judge.
Cause Title- The State of Tripura v. Mahabul Alam & Ors.
