'In The Face Of The Mandate Of Section 37 NDPS Act': Supreme Court Sets Aside Bail Granted To NDPS Accused

The Supreme Court recently set aside the bail granted to two persons accused in an NDPS case."In the face of the mandate of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, the High Court could not and ought not to have released the accused on bail", the bench of CJI UU Lalit and Justice Bela M. Trivedi observed.As per the prosecution case, about 13 kgs of morphine was found in a car which was driven by Md. Jakir Hussain who, in a statement recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act also named his owner accused Abdul Hai. During the course of investigation, it was found that contraband material in question was to be handed-over to accused -Khalil Uddin, an owner of a tea shop. The Gauhati High Court granted bail to Abdul Hai and Khalil Uddin and aggreived with this, the State approached the Apex Court.While considering the appeal, the court noted that the validity and scope of statements under Section 67 is dealt in the judgment in Tofan Singh vs. State of Tamil Nadu (2021) 4 SCC 1 and that in State by (NCB) Bengaluru vs. Pallulabid Ahmad Arimutta & Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 69, the rigour of law lay down in Tofan Singh was held to be applicable even at the stage of grant of bail. But the court noted thus:"However, going by the circumstances on record, at this stage, on the strength of the statement of Md. Nizam Uddin, though allegedly retracted later, the matter stands on a different footing. In our considered view, in the face of the mandate of Section 37 of the Act, the High Court could not and ought not to have released the accused on bail."While setting aside the High Court order, the bench directed the Trial Court to conclude the proceedings as early as possible and preferably within six months from the receipt of this order.Recently, another Supreme Court bench had observed that an accused under NDPS Act may be able to take advantage of the Tofan Singh judgment at the time of arguing the regular bail application or at the time of final hearing after conclusion of the trial. [State of Haryana vs Samarth Kumar | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 622 ]Case detailsUnion of India (NCB)vs Khalil Uddin | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 878 | CrA 1841-1842/2022 | 21 October 2022 | CJI UU Lalit and Justice Bela M. TrivediHeadnotesNarcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ; Sections 37, 67 - Appeal against Bail granted to NDPS accused - Allowed - Validity and scope of statements under Section 67- Referred to Tofan Singh vs. State of Tamil Nadu (2021) 4 SCC 1 - The rigour of law lay down in Tofan Singh was held to be applicable even at the stage of grant of bail - Referred to State by (NCB) Bengaluru vs. Pallulabid Ahmad Arimutta & Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 69 - However, going by the circumstances on record, at this stage, the matter stands on a different footing- In the face of the mandate of Section 37 of the Act, the High Court could not and ought not to have released the accused on bail. Click here to Read/Download Order

'In The Face Of The Mandate Of Section 37 NDPS Act': Supreme Court Sets Aside Bail Granted To NDPS Accused

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags