“Reasonable Grounds” To Grant Bail Pending Trial In NDPS Cases Cannot Be Interpreted As 'Proof' Under BSA: J&K High Court

Underscoring the importance of a balanced interpretation of "reasonable grounds" in the context of bail applications, the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has emphasized that such grounds must go beyond mere suspicion yet fall short of conclusive proof.

A bench of Justice Mohammad Yousuf Wani added,

“.. The words “reasonable grounds” cannot be read to mean proved as used in “Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam'. Such an interpretation would in my opinion set at naught the power vested in a court to grant bail pending trial. The expression “reasonable grounds” would obviously mean something more than mere suspicion and conjectures and something less than proof”.

These observations came in a case involving a businessman from Doda, who sought bail after being accused under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act. The prosecution had alleged that he was involved in financing illicit drug trafficking through minor financial transactions. The case against him was primarily based on the statements of co-accused and his own statements recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, which were claimed to be inadmissible unless they led to recovery or new facts.

Justice Wani, while considering the bail application, delved into the interpretation of "reasonable grounds" as stipulated under Section 37 of the NDPS Act. The court stated that the term "reasonable grounds" cannot be equated with the higher standard of "proof," as described in the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (Indian Evidence Act). The Court observed that such an interpretation would essentially nullify the power vested in courts to grant bail pending trial, noting that "reasonable grounds" should mean something more than mere suspicion but less than full proof, allowing a balanced judicial approach.

Emphasising the need for a fair and just judicial process, particularly in bail matters the Court noted that while the nature of the charges ie drug trafficking is undoubtedly serious, a balance must be struck to ensure that individuals are not unjustly deprived of their liberty before trial.

In analyzing the facts, Justice Wani pointed out that the petitioner's involvement, as alleged by the prosecution, did not meet the threshold of "reasonable grounds." The prosecution, the court stated, had failed to provide any direct evidence linking the accused to the contraband substances or proving that the minor bank transactions were related to illicit activities. Furthermore, the Court noted that the accused had no prior criminal record, and the evidence presented could not prima facie justify the serious charges leveled against him.

The bench also tackled the interpretation of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, which imposes restrictions on granting bail in cases involving narcotics, specifically where the offence involves commercial quantities of drugs. However, Justice Wani stressed that while such provisions are intended to prevent the granting of bail in heinous cases, the interpretation of "reasonable grounds" must not undermine the constitutional right to personal liberty.

The Court cited previous rulings, including Sanjay Chandra vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, to highlight that bail is not punitive, and deprivation of liberty should only occur when absolutely necessary to ensure the trial's fair conduct.

Justice Wani further reiterated that the court must exercise its discretion judicially when considering bail applications, ensuring that the individual's liberty is not curtailed unnecessarily while safeguarding the larger interests of justice.

The Court concluded that the petitioner had demonstrated that there were no reasonable grounds to believe that he was involved in financing illicit drug trafficking. Therefore, he was granted bail, subject to the submission of sureties and adherence to conditions set by the trial court.

Case Title: Arfaz Mehboob Tak Vs Union of India

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment