The High Court rejected the petitioner's application for pre-arrest bail in a narcotics trafficking case. The court held that the offence was heinous and the statutory conditions under Section 37(1)(b) of the NDPS Act were not met, consequently refusing release.
Prayer for pre-arrest bail stood rejected; the application was disposed of.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
ABLAPL No.19462 of 2019
02. 17.1.2020
The petitioner apprehending his arrest in Mohana P.S. Case No.76 of 2019 pending in the court of the learned District & Sessions Judge, Gajapati registered for alleged commission of offence punishable under Section 20(b)(II)(C)/25/29 of the N.D.P.S. Act has filed this petition for his release on pre-arrest bail.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the State.
It appears that prima facie allegation is made out against the petitioner as allegedly he was involved in trafficking of Narcotic Drugs and the offence alleged against him is heinous in nature. Section 37(1)(b) of the N.D.P.S. Act prescribes limitation to grant regular bail unless twin conditions therein are satisfied even if an accused has made out a case for release on bail overriding the limitation to grant bail under the Code of Criminal Procedure. The said provision reads as thus:
“ 37. Offences to be cognizable and non-bailable – (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), -
xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx (b) no person accused of an offence punishable for [offences under section 19 or section 24 or section 27-A 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.
So, regard being had to the facts and submissions made, especially the nature and gravity of the offences, character of evidence appearing against the petitioner
2
and circumstances in which the offence said to have been committed and there is also nothing on record to suggest the fact that the allegations made against the petitioner being actuated with mala fide and limitation to grant bail under Section 37(1)(b) of the N.D.P.S. Act without recording the twin satisfaction which is hard to record in this Court, this Court is not inclined to release the petitioner on pre-arrest bail.
Accordingly, the prayer for pre-arrest bail of the petitioner stands rejected and the ABLAPL is disposed of.
….……………… S.Pujahari, J.
PKS
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner should be released on pre-arrest bail in a narcotics trafficking case.
Whether the statutory twin conditions under Section 37(1)(b) of the NDPS Act are satisfied.
Whether the heinous nature of the offence overrides the ordinary bail provisions under CrPC.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Petitioner
State
S. Pujahari
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
