Supreme Court Cancels Bail in NDPS Act Case: Union of India vs. Prateek Shukla (2021)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 8 March 2021
Citation: (2021) INSC 137
Judges: Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J and M R Shah, J
Can a High Court grant bail to an accused in a case involving serious violations of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) without proper application of mind to the legal norms? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question, ultimately canceling bail granted by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad. The case revolves around allegations of diversion, illegal storage, and sale of controlled substances, specifically acetic anhydride and amphetamine, and the court found that the High Court had not properly considered the seriousness of the charges and the legal requirements for granting bail under the NDPS Act. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud and Justice M R Shah with the majority opinion authored by Justice Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud.

Case Background

The case began with secret information received by the Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB) on 18 October 2018, indicating that Altruist Chemicals Private Limited had purchased a large quantity of acetic anhydride and failed to submit required quarterly returns. A search of the company’s premises revealed 896 grams of acetic anhydride and 1.885 kg of amphetamine. Documents found during the search linked the respondent, Prateek Shukla, and an Afghan national, Bismillah Khan Ahmadzai, as directors of M/s Griffin International. Further investigation led to the discovery of 9650 kgs of acetic anhydride at a godown in Ghaziabad. The respondent’s residential premises were also searched, yielding various incriminating documents and items including an arms license with a co-accused’s photograph, cheque books, rubber stamps of various companies, and bank documents. The respondent was arrested on 22 October 2018. The prosecution alleged that the accused were part of an international drug syndicate involved in the diversion, illegal storage, sale, purchase, and export of controlled substances.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The respondent’s initial bail application was rejected by the Additional Sessions Judge III, Gautam Budh Nagar on 6 February 2019. Subsequently, the respondent filed a bail application before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, which granted bail through an order dated 7 May 2019. The Union of India then appealed to the Supreme Court against the High Court’s decision to grant bail.

Legal Framework

The case primarily revolves around the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act), specifically Sections 8, 9A, 25A, 23, and 29. These sections deal with offenses related to the production, manufacture, possession, sale, purchase, transportation, import, and export of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances. Section 37 of the NDPS Act outlines the conditions for granting bail, placing a burden on the accused to prove they are not guilty, rather than on the prosecution to prove guilt. The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (Regulation of Control Substances) Order 2013 mandates the submission of quarterly returns for controlled substances, which Altruist Chemicals Private Limited allegedly failed to do.

Relevant legal provisions include:

• Section 8 of the NDPS Act: Prohibits certain operations relating to narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances.
• Section 9A of the NDPS Act: Deals with the control of certain substances.
• Section 25A of the NDPS Act: Specifies penalties for contravention of orders made under Section 9A.
• Section 23 of the NDPS Act: Deals with illegal import, export, and transshipment of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances.
• Section 29 of the NDPS Act: Addresses abetment and criminal conspiracy.
• Section 37 of the NDPS Act: Lays down the conditions for grant of bail in cases involving offences under the NDPS Act.

Arguments

The arguments presented by both the Union of India and the respondent are summarized below:

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section. However, the primary issue that the court addressed was:

• Whether the High Court was justified in granting bail to the respondent, considering the provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act and the seriousness of the allegations against him.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates how the Court decided the issue:

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the following factors:

• The seriousness of the allegations against the respondent, which involved violations of the NDPS Act.
• The High Court’s failure to apply its mind to the legal norms stipulated under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.
• The High Court’s extraneous reasoning that the respondent, being an educated person, “may not commit any offence.”
• The incriminating material recovered during the investigation, which prima facie indicated the respondent’s involvement.
• The fact that the burden of proof lies on the accused under the NDPS Act, which was wrongly reversed by the High Court.

The Court emphasized that the High Court’s order was devoid of any judicial application of mind and that the seriousness of the offense under the NDPS Act warranted a more stringent approach to bail.

The Supreme Court found that the High Court’s reasoning was not based on sound legal principles and that the seriousness of the offense under the NDPS Act warranted a more stringent approach to bail. The court noted that the High Court’s reasoning that the respondent, being an educated person, “may not commit any offence” was an extraneous consideration.

Key Takeaways

• The Supreme Court emphasized that High Courts must apply their minds to the seriousness of the allegations and the legal norms under Section 37 of the NDPS Act when considering bail applications.
• The burden of proof lies on the accused under the NDPS Act, and this cannot be reversed by the High Court.
• Extraneous considerations, such as the educational background of the accused, should not influence the grant of bail in NDPS Act cases.
• This judgment reinforces the stringent approach to bail in cases involving offenses under the NDPS Act.
• The decision sets a precedent for future cases involving bail under the NDPS Act, highlighting the need for a careful and judicious application of the law.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that:

• The bail granted by the High Court to the respondent was cancelled.
• The respondent was required to surrender forthwith as a result of the cancellation of bail.

Specific Amendments Analysis

There were no specific amendments discussed in the judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the High Court must adhere to the stringent conditions for granting bail under Section 37 of the NDPS Act and must not consider extraneous factors such as the educational background of the accused. This judgment reinforces the existing legal position that the burden of proof lies on the accused in cases under the NDPS Act and that the High Court must apply its mind to the seriousness of the allegations. This case does not introduce a new position of law but emphasizes the correct application of the existing law.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal by the Union of India, setting aside the High Court’s order granting bail to the respondent, Prateek Shukla. The Court held that the High Court had misapplied the law by not considering the seriousness of the allegations and the stringent conditions for bail under the NDPS Act. This judgment reinforces the importance of adhering to legal norms and avoiding extraneous considerations when deciding on bail applications in NDPS Act cases. The respondent was directed to surrender forthwith.