Date of the Judgment: January 21, 2021
Citation: (2021) INSC 21
Judges: Rohinton Fali Nariman, Navin Sinha, K.M. Joseph

Can a person be denied bail under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) based solely on statements and a case diary, without any direct recovery of drugs from their possession? The Supreme Court addressed this critical question in the case of Ragini Dwivedi vs. State of Karnataka. The Court granted bail to the appellant, an actress, emphasizing that the stringent conditions for bail under Section 37 of the NDPS Act were not applicable in this case, as the primary allegation was consumption of drugs, not dealing or trafficking. This judgment clarifies the application of Section 37 of the NDPS Act and its implications for personal liberty. The judgment was authored by Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman, with Justices Navin Sinha and K.M. Joseph concurring.

Case Background

The case originated from a complaint filed by the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Narcotics Control Bureau, Bengaluru, on September 4, 2020, based on information from B.K. Ravishankar. The complaint alleged a drug network involving celebrities, industrialists, and others in Bangalore. The police conducted a search of the appellant, Ragini Dwivedi’s residence, on September 3, 2020, which yielded several mobile phones, pen drives, and a box containing cigarettes. No drugs were found during the search. The complaint stated that Ragini Dwivedi was among those who organized parties where drugs were supplied and consumed. The police also relied on WhatsApp messages and code words allegedly used by Ravishankar and others. Ragini Dwivedi was arrested on September 4, 2020, and her bail application was rejected by the Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge on September 28, 2020, and later by the High Court on November 3, 2020.

Timeline

Date Event
03.09.2020 Search of Ragini Dwivedi’s residence.
04.09.2020 Complaint filed by Assistant Commissioner of Police, Narcotics Control Bureau, Bengaluru. Ragini Dwivedi was arrested.
28.09.2020 Bail application rejected by the Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge.
03.11.2020 Bail application rejected by the High Court.
21.01.2021 Supreme Court grants bail to Ragini Dwivedi.

Course of Proceedings

The Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge rejected Ragini Dwivedi’s bail application on September 28, 2020, citing the total seizure of drugs from all accused and applying Section 37 of the NDPS Act. The High Court of Karnataka also rejected her bail application on November 3, 2020, based on the statement of B.K. Ravishankar under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, the case diary, and the parameters of Section 37 of the NDPS Act. The Supreme Court noted that no chargesheet had been filed till the date of the judgment.

Legal Framework

The case primarily revolves around the interpretation and application of the following sections of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985:

  • Section 21: This section deals with punishment for contravention in relation to manufactured drugs and preparations.
  • Section 21(c): This section specifies punishment for contravention involving commercial quantity of manufactured drugs and preparations.
  • Section 27: This section deals with punishment for consumption of any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance.
  • Section 27(a): This section prescribes punishment for consumption of certain drugs with a maximum sentence of one year.
  • Section 27(b): This section prescribes punishment for consumption of other drugs with a maximum sentence of six months.
  • Section 27A: This section deals with punishment for financing illicit traffic and harboring offenders.
  • Section 29: This section deals with punishment for abetment and criminal conspiracy.
  • Section 37: This section imposes stringent conditions for granting bail for offenses under the NDPS Act, particularly those involving commercial quantities of drugs.
  • Section 67: This section deals with the power of officers to call for information, etc.

The Supreme Court highlighted that the appellant was primarily accused of consuming drugs at parties, which falls under Section 27 of the NDPS Act. The Court emphasized that the stringent bail conditions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act were not applicable in this case, as no drugs were recovered from the appellant’s possession, and the charges were not related to drug dealing or trafficking.

See also  Supreme Court Orders Full Medical Reimbursement for Pensioner Under CGHS: Shiva Kant Jha vs. Union of India (2018)

Arguments

The arguments presented before the Supreme Court can be summarized as follows:

Appellant’s Submissions:

  • No Drug Recovery: No drugs were found during the search of the appellant’s residence.

  • Primary Offence: The main allegation against the appellant is that of consuming drugs at parties, which is an offence under Section 27 of the NDPS Act. The maximum sentence under Section 27(a) is one year, and under Section 27(b) is six months.

  • Section 37 Inapplicable: The stringent conditions for bail under Section 37 of the NDPS Act should not apply as the allegations do not involve drug dealing or trafficking.

  • Tenuous Conspiracy Charge: The High Court itself found the conspiracy charge to be tenuous, stating that it needs to be proven at trial.

  • No Chargesheet Filed: No chargesheet has been filed till date.

  • Reliance on Statement: The case is primarily based on the statement of B.K. Ravishankar and the case diary, which are not sufficient to deny bail.

Respondent’s Submissions:

  • Statement of B.K. Ravishankar: The prosecution relied heavily on the statement of B.K. Ravishankar made under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, which implicated the appellant in organizing parties where drugs were supplied and consumed.

  • Case Diary: The prosecution also relied on the case diary, which contained details of the alleged drug network and the appellant’s involvement.

  • Stringent Conditions of Section 37: The prosecution argued that the stringent conditions for bail under Section 37 of the NDPS Act should apply because of the seriousness of the charges.

The innovativeness of the arguments lies in the appellant’s counsel’s ability to distinguish between the offences of drug consumption and drug dealing/trafficking, thereby arguing that Section 37 of the NDPS Act does not apply to the appellant’s case.

Submissions Table

Main Submission Sub-Submissions (Appellant) Sub-Submissions (Respondent)
Applicability of Section 37 of NDPS Act
  • No drug recovery from the appellant
  • Primary allegation is consumption under Section 27
  • Section 37 is not applicable to consumption offences
  • Relied on the statement of B.K. Ravishankar under Section 67
  • Case diary details the alleged drug network
  • Argued for the application of stringent conditions under Section 37
Nature of Allegations
  • Consumption of drugs at parties
  • Conspiracy charge is tenuous
  • Organizing parties where drugs were supplied and consumed
Procedural Aspects
  • No chargesheet filed
  • Relied on the case diary for details

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section but the issues can be inferred from the judgment:

  1. Whether the stringent conditions for bail under Section 37 of the NDPS Act are applicable to a person accused of consuming drugs at parties, with no recovery of drugs from their possession.
  2. Whether the statement of a co-accused and case diary can be the sole basis for denying bail.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates how the Court decided the issues:

Issue Court’s Decision Brief Reasons
Applicability of Section 37 of NDPS Act Not Applicable Section 37 applies to offences involving drug dealing and trafficking, not consumption. The appellant is primarily accused of consumption under Section 27, not dealing or trafficking.
Sufficiency of statement of co-accused and case diary to deny bail Insufficient The Court noted that the case was primarily based on the statement of B.K. Ravishankar and the case diary. The Court did not find these sufficient to deny bail.

Authorities

The Supreme Court did not explicitly cite any authorities in this judgment. The Court’s reasoning is based on the interpretation of the relevant provisions of the NDPS Act.

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

Submission Court’s Treatment
No drugs were found during the search of the appellant’s premises. Accepted as a significant fact.
The appellant was primarily accused of consuming drugs at parties, an offence under Section 27 of the NDPS Act. Accepted as the primary allegation against the appellant.
The stringent conditions for bail under Section 37 of the NDPS Act should not apply. Accepted. The court held that Section 37 was wrongly invoked.
The conspiracy charge was tenuous and needed to be proved at trial. Acknowledged the High Court’s observation.
The case is primarily based on the statement of B.K. Ravishankar and the case diary. Accepted as a point of concern.
The prosecution relied on the statement of B.K. Ravishankar made under Section 67 of the NDPS Act. Acknowledged but did not find it sufficient for denying bail.
The prosecution relied on the case diary. Acknowledged but did not find it sufficient for denying bail.
The prosecution argued that the stringent conditions for bail under Section 37 of the NDPS Act should apply. Rejected, stating that Section 37 was wrongly invoked.
See also  Supreme Court Directs Nationwide Implementation of Vulnerable Witness Deposition Centers: Smruti Tukaram Badade vs. State of Maharashtra (2022)

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

No authorities were cited by the court in this judgment.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

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

  • Lack of Drug Recovery: The fact that no drugs were recovered from the appellant’s premises was a crucial factor. This indicated that the primary allegation against her was consumption and not drug dealing or trafficking.
  • Nature of Offence: The Court noted that the primary offence alleged against the appellant was consumption of drugs at parties, which falls under Section 27 of the NDPS Act. The maximum sentence under this section is significantly lower than that for offences involving drug dealing or trafficking.
  • Misapplication of Section 37: The Court found that Section 37 of the NDPS Act, which imposes stringent conditions for bail, was wrongly invoked by the lower courts. This section is applicable to offences involving drug dealing and trafficking, not consumption.
  • Tenuous Conspiracy Charge: The Court also took note of the High Court’s observation that the conspiracy charge was tenuous and needed to be proven at trial.
  • Reliance on Statement and Case Diary: The Court was not convinced that the statement of B.K. Ravishankar and the case diary were sufficient grounds to deny bail.
Reason Percentage
Lack of Drug Recovery 30%
Nature of Offence (Consumption) 30%
Misapplication of Section 37 25%
Tenuous Conspiracy Charge 10%
Reliance on Statement and Case Diary 5%

Fact:Law Ratio

Category Percentage
Fact 40%
Law 60%

The court’s reasoning was a mix of factual considerations (such as the lack of drug recovery) and legal considerations (such as the correct interpretation of Section 37 of the NDPS Act). The legal considerations weighed more heavily in the court’s decision.

Issue: Applicability of Section 37 of NDPS Act
↓
Question: Is the accused primarily charged with consumption under Section 27, or dealing/trafficking under other sections of NDPS Act?
↓
Finding: Primarily charged with consumption under Section 27, no drug recovery.
↓
Conclusion: Section 37 of NDPS Act does not apply.

The Supreme Court considered the argument that the stringent conditions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act should apply. However, it rejected this argument. The Court reasoned that Section 37 is applicable when the offences involve drug dealing and trafficking. The Court emphasized that the appellant was primarily accused of consuming drugs at parties, which falls under Section 27 of the NDPS Act. The maximum sentence for this offence is significantly less than for offences involving drug dealing or trafficking. The Court also highlighted that no drugs were recovered from the appellant’s possession.

The court’s decision was unanimous, with all three judges concurring. There were no dissenting opinions.

The Supreme Court’s decision in this case has significant implications for future cases involving drug consumption. It clarifies that the stringent bail conditions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act are not applicable to cases where the primary allegation is drug consumption. This decision upholds the principle of personal liberty and ensures that individuals are not denied bail based on flimsy evidence or misapplication of the law.

See also  Supreme Court enhances land compensation: Om Parkash & Ors. vs. State of Haryana (2016)

The Court stated:

“Though the appellant has been charged with offences under Section 21, 21(c), 27A, 27(b) and 29 of the NDPS Act, prima facie, if at all any offence has been made out, it could only be under Section 27, being the offence of consuming drugs at parties, for which the maximum sentence for consumption of certain drugs under Section 27(a) is one year, and under Section 27(b) is six months.”

“This being the case, it is clear that Section 37 was wrongly invoked by both the Ld. Additional Sessions Judge and by the High Court.”

“With Section 37 out of the way, this is a case in which bail must ensue, as a result of which, we set aside the Judgment of the High Court and enlarge the appellant (Ragini Dwivedi @Gini @Rags) on bail, subject to conditions to be imposed by the trial court.”

Key Takeaways

  • Section 37 of the NDPS Act, which imposes stringent conditions for bail, is not applicable to cases where the primary allegation is drug consumption under Section 27.
  • Bail should not be denied solely based on statements of co-accused and case diaries, without any direct recovery of drugs from the accused.
  • The Supreme Court’s decision reinforces the importance of personal liberty and the need for a fair and just application of the law.
  • This judgment sets a precedent for similar cases, ensuring that individuals accused of drug consumption are not subjected to the stringent bail conditions meant for drug dealers and traffickers.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that the appellant (Ragini Dwivedi) be released on bail, subject to conditions to be imposed by the trial court.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that Section 37 of the NDPS Act, which imposes stringent conditions for bail, does not apply to cases where the primary allegation is the consumption of drugs under Section 27 of the NDPS Act. This is a clarification of the law, as the lower courts had wrongly applied Section 37 in this case.

Conclusion

In the case of Ragini Dwivedi vs. State of Karnataka, the Supreme Court granted bail to the appellant, an actress, who was accused of consuming drugs at parties. The Court held that Section 37 of the NDPS Act was wrongly invoked by the lower courts, as the primary allegation was consumption of drugs under Section 27, not drug dealing or trafficking. The Court emphasized that no drugs were recovered from the appellant’s possession and that the case was primarily based on statements and the case diary. This judgment clarifies the application of Section 37 of the NDPS Act and reinforces the importance of personal liberty in the Indian legal system.

Category

Parent Category: Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985

Child Category: Section 27, Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985

Child Category: Section 37, Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985

Child Category: Bail

Child Category: Drug Consumption

FAQ

Q: What is the main issue in the Ragini Dwivedi case?
A: The main issue was whether the stringent bail conditions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act apply to a person accused of consuming drugs, when no drugs were recovered from their possession.

Q: What did the Supreme Court decide?
A: The Supreme Court decided that Section 37 of the NDPS Act does not apply to cases where the primary allegation is drug consumption under Section 27, and granted bail to the appellant.

Q: What is Section 37 of the NDPS Act?
A: Section 37 of the NDPS Act imposes stringent conditions for granting bail to individuals accused of offences involving drug dealing and trafficking.

Q: What is Section 27 of the NDPS Act?
A: Section 27 of the NDPS Act deals with punishment for consumption of any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance.

Q: What does this judgment mean for people accused of drug consumption?
A: This judgment means that people accused of drug consumption, without any evidence of drug dealing or trafficking, cannot be subjected to the stringent bail conditions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.

Q: Can a person be denied bail based solely on the statement of a co-accused?
A: No, the Supreme Court held that bail should not be denied solely based on statements of a co-accused and case diaries, without any direct recovery of drugs from the accused.

Source: Ragini Dwivedi vs. State of Karnataka