2016 ALL SCR (Cri) 1561
S. A. BOBDE AND ASHOK BHUSHAN, JJ.
Union of India Vs. Ishdan Seikh @ Ishdan Sk
Criminal Appeal No.774 of 2016
17th August, 2016.
Petitioner Counsel: Mr. ATMARAM NADKARNI, ASG, Mr. RAJESH SINGH CHAUHAN, Ms. BINU TAMTA
Respondent Counsel: Mr. RAJIV SINGH, Mr. SALVADA REBELLO, Mr. MANISH VASHISHTHA
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (1985), S.37(b)(ii) - Bail - Grant of - Challenge - Offence under NDPS Act - Bail granted only on ground that nothing was recovered from accused - Held, as per S.37 reasons required to be given by High Court are that the court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that accused is not guilty of such offence and not likely to commit any offence while on bail - Impugned order set aside - Matter remitted to be considered afresh. (1999) 9 SCC 429, 2001 ALL MR (Cri) 403 (S.C.) Ref. to. (Paras 4, 7)
Union of India Vs. Ram Samujh & Anr., (1999) 9 SCC 429 [Para 6]
Supdt. Narcotics Control Bureau Vs. R. Paul Samy, 2001 ALL MR (Cri) 403 (S.C.)=(2000) 9 SCC 549 [Para 6]
JUDGMENT :- Heard Shri Atmaram Nadkarni, learned Additional Solicitor General.
2. None appears for the respondent, though served.
3. Leave granted.
4. The only ground on which the High Court has released the respondent on bail is that "nothing was recovered from the respondent". Having regard to the provisions of Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (For short, "the NDPS Act") we find that the reasons which are required to be given by the High Court are that "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" (vide Section 37(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act).
5. Shri Nadkarni, learned Additional Solicitor General refers to the recovery memo from which it appears that the recovery was made from the other person who was along with the respondent. According to the learned counsel the recovery was made from the respondent. We are not inclined to go into the question of recovery. However, we are of the view that any reason which weighs with the Court must lead to a satisfaction that there are reasonable grounds of believing that the person is not guilty of such an offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. Accordingly, the Court is bound to correlate any reason to the belief that such a person is not guilty of such an offence. This requirement is not satisfied by the impugned order.
6. Learned Additional Solicitor General relied upon the decisions of this Court in the case of Union of India vs. Ram Samujh & Anr., (1999) 9 SCC 429 and in the case of Supdt. Narcotics Control Bureau vs. R. Paul Samy, (2000) 9 SCC 549 : [2001 ALL MR (Cri) 403 (S.C.)]. These decisions need to be considered by the High Court.
7. In the circumstances of the case, we set aside the impugned order and remit the matter back to the High Court for a fresh decision after due notice to the respondent.
8. The amount of Rs. 25,000/- deposited in this Court vide order dated 20.11.2015 shall be transferred to the account of Supreme Court Legal Services Committee.
9. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.