Bail granted in an NDPS case was set aside because the accused was arrested in another similar NDPS offence after release; he was taken into custody and the trial directed to be concluded, preferably within four months.
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — s.18 — Bail — Cancellation — Subsequent similar offence — Custody — Expeditious trial —
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — s.18 — Bail cancelled on fresh similar offence —
Held: Where an accused enlarged on bail in an offence under the NDPS Act is thereafter arrested in another similar offence under the same Act, his subsequent involvement is a material change of circumstance. The nature of the offence and that fresh involvement justify setting aside the order granting bail. (¶3, 5)
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — Repeat involvement — Relevant to bail —
Held further: A repeated indulgence in offences of the same character bears directly on the accused's fitness to remain on bail. The order granting bail is, in these circumstances, unsustainable. (¶5)
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — Custody — Expeditious trial —
Held further: The bail order is set aside and the accused is directed to be taken into custody. The Trial Court is directed to expedite and conclude the trial, preferably within four months. Appeal allowed. (¶6)
Why was the bail granted by the High Court set aside?
Because after his release the accused was arrested in another similar offence under the NDPS Act; given the nature of the offence and this subsequent involvement, the Supreme Court found it appropriate to set aside the bail. [¶3, ¶5]
What direction was given regarding the trial?
The accused was directed to be taken into custody and the Trial Court was directed to expedite and conclude the trial, preferably within four months. [¶6]
Prepared by the LexStreak Editorial Desk — verify against the judgment.
“Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties and to the nature of the offence as also the fact that the respondent-accused has been arrested in a similar offence under the NDPS Act, we deem it appropriate to set aside the impugned order passed by the High Court. ”
“Accordingly, the impugned order dated 24.11.2022, passed by the High Court of Jharkhand, is set aside. The respondent-accused is directed to be taken into custody in connection with Case No. 231 of 2022, registered at Police Station-Sadar, District-Chatra, Jharkhand. However, the Trial Court is directed to expedite the trial and conclude the same in accordance with law, preferably within four 3 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. ”
Headnote & Points of Law
You've used your free headnotes this month
The Court's judgment is below in full, free, as always — that never changes. What needs an account is LexStreak's own work on it: the headnote, the questions this judgment settles, and the passages that decide them. A free account opens all of it again.
Create my free accountFree forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India
Leave granted.
The present appeal is directed against the impugned judgment and order dated 24.11.2022, passed by the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi in B.A.No. 9276 of 2022, whereby the High Court had allowed the said application filed by the respondent-accused seeking bail in connection with Case No. 231 of 2022, registered at Police StationSadar, District- Chatra, Jharkhand for the offence punishable under Section-18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (for short ‘the NDPS Act’).
It is sought to be submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant-State that after the release of the respondent-accused on bail, vide the impugned order dated 24.11.2022 passed by the High Court, the respondentaccused was involved in another case under the NDPS Act, and was also arrested for the same on 12.07.2023. He also submitted that the trial in respect of the present appeal, 2 has already commenced and only three witnesses have remained to be examined.
However, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-accused submitted that the recovery of the alleged contraband was not of commercial quantity and it was only of an intermediate quantity, and therefore, the rigors of Section-37 would not be applicable to the instant case. She also submitted that the appellant-State has challenged the very order granting the respondentaccused bail, and it is not a case of cancellation of bail on the ground of breach of any of the bail conditions. She has conceded that at present, the respondent-accused is under arrest in connection with other offence punishable under the NDPS Act, registered after the present one.
Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties and to the nature of the offence as also the fact that the respondent-accused has been arrested in a similar offence under the NDPS Act, we deem it appropriate to set aside the impugned order passed by the High Court.
Accordingly, the impugned order dated 24.11.2022, passed by the High Court of Jharkhand, is set aside. The respondent-accused is directed to be taken into custody in connection with Case No. 231 of 2022, registered at Police Station-Sadar, District-Chatra, Jharkhand. However, the Trial Court is directed to expedite the trial and conclude the same in accordance with law, preferably within four 3 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
Accordingly, the appeal is allowed.
Pending application(s), if any, shall stand closed. .......…..............J. (BELA M. TRIVEDI) .........................J. (PRASANNA B. VARALE) New Delhi 03rd February, 2025
Is non-payment of a part of the sale price a ground for cancellation of a registered Sale Deed once title has passed?
2020 INSC 450 · Supreme Court of India
Does the burden to prove that property is joint property of a Hindu Undivided Family lie on the person who alleges it?
2020 INSC 327 · Supreme Court of India
Can a confession statement be used to frame charges against an accused in the absence of any other evidence?
CRL RC.2194/2023 · Madras High Court
The Supreme Court and the Madras High Court decide something every day. Read one a day.
A free account gets you the day's judgments in your practice areas, a reading streak, and folders to keep what matters.
Start reading freeOne judgment a day. That's the whole habit.
LexStreak turns the Supreme Court's and the Madras High Court's output into a five-minute daily read for advocates — plain-language headnotes, the questions each judgment settles, and the full text when you need it.
Free forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India
Headnote and questions prepared by the LexStreak Editorial Desk · Report an error · Privacy