Supreme Court sets aside bail rejection based on co-accused’s non-surrender in NDPS case

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: May 18, 2023

Citation: Not Available

Judges: Justice K.M. Joseph and Justice Aravind Kumar

Can the actions of one accused person impact the bail prospects of another? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in a case involving the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act). The court examined whether the fact that a co-accused, who was released on bail, had not surrendered could be a valid ground for denying bail to another accused.

The Supreme Court bench, comprising Justice K.M. Joseph and Justice Aravind Kumar, delivered a judgment setting aside the High Court’s order that had rejected the appellant’s bail application based on the non-surrender of a co-accused. The judgment emphasizes that each case for bail must be considered on its own merits and that the actions of one accused cannot be a determining factor for another.

Case Background

The appellant, Sebil Elanjimpally, was accused of offenses under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. He had been in custody for two years and eleven months. The High Court rejected his second bail application, citing the non-surrender of a co-accused who had been previously granted bail. The appellant’s first bail application was rejected on 07.07.2022.

The High Court, while rejecting the bail application, noted that the appellant’s father had undergone surgery. However, this fact was not considered sufficient to grant bail. Instead, the High Court directed the expeditious disposal of the case.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The High Court rejected the appellant’s second bail application, primarily because a co-accused, who had been granted bail, had not surrendered. The High Court did note the appellant’s father’s surgery but did not consider this a sufficient ground for granting bail. Instead, the High Court directed for the expeditious disposal of the case. The appellant then approached the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The appellant was charged under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. This section deals with offenses related to the production, manufacture, possession, sale, purchase, transportation, import inter-State, export inter-State, or use of cannabis, where the quantity involved is commercial.

The relevant portion of Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, states:

“20. Punishment for contravention in relation to cannabis plant and cannabis.—Whoever, in contravention of any provision of this Act or any rule or order made or condition of licence granted thereunder,—
(a) cultivates any cannabis plant; or
(b) produces, manufactures, possesses, sells, purchases, transports, imports inter-State, exports inter-State or uses cannabis,
shall be punishable,—
(i) where such contravention relates to clause (a) with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years and shall also be liable to fine which may extend to one lakh rupees; and
(ii) where such contravention is in relation to clause (b),—
(A) and involves small quantity, with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees, or with both;
(B) and involves quantity lesser than commercial quantity but greater than small quantity, with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years and with fine which may extend to one lakh rupees;
(C) and involves commercial quantity, with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than ten years but which may extend to twenty years and shall also be liable to fine which shall not be less than one lakh rupees but which may extend to two lakh rupees:
Provided that the court may, for reasons to be recorded in the judgment, impose a fine exceeding two lakh rupees.”

Arguments

The appellant argued that the High Court erred in rejecting his bail application solely based on the non-surrender of a co-accused. The appellant contended that his bail plea should be considered on its own merits, independent of the actions of the co-accused.

The State argued that the High Court’s decision was justified given the co-accused’s failure to surrender, which could indicate a potential flight risk or an attempt to evade justice.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issue:

• Whether the fact that a co-accused who was released on bail has not surrendered can be a germane factor to decline bail to another co-accused.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court did not cite any specific cases or legal provisions other than Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

Judgment

The Supreme Court held that the fact that a co-accused, who was released on bail, had not surrendered cannot be a valid reason to deny bail to the appellant. The Court stated that each bail application must be considered on its own merits.

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order and directed the High Court to reconsider the bail application. The Court emphasized that the case should be decided based on its own merits and not based on the actions of a co-accused.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the principle that each bail application should be evaluated on its own merits. The Court found that the High Court’s reasoning, which relied solely on the non-surrender of a co-accused, was not a valid ground for rejecting bail. The Court emphasized the importance of individual consideration in bail matters, ensuring that the actions of one accused do not unfairly prejudice another.

The Court’s reasoning was based on the following logical flow:

The Supreme Court did not consider any alternative interpretations, as the issue was straightforward: whether the non-surrender of a co-accused could be a valid ground for rejecting bail. The Court’s decision was based on the principle that each case must be considered independently.

The Supreme Court’s decision can be summarized as follows:

• The High Court’s order was set aside.
• The High Court was directed to reconsider the bail application.
• The non-surrender of a co-accused is not a valid ground for rejecting bail.

The following quotes from the judgment highlight the court’s reasoning:

“The impugned order shows that what has weighed with the Court is the fact that the co-accused who was released on bail has not surrendered. It is this factor alone which we can discern to be the reason to not entertain the bail application.”

“After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that the fact that the co-accused who was released on bail has not surrendered cannot be a germane factor to decline bail to the co-accused, namely, the appellant.”

“In such circumstances, we are of the view that the matter must have reconsideration again at the hands of the High Court.”

There were no dissenting opinions in this case.

Key Takeaways

• Bail applications must be considered on their individual merits.
• The actions of a co-accused cannot be the sole basis for denying bail to another accused.
• High Courts must re-evaluate bail applications without being influenced by the non-surrender of a co-accused.
• The Supreme Court’s decision reinforces the principle of individual justice in bail matters.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the High Court to take up the appellant’s bail application (BLAPL No. 6803/2022) and dispose of it at the earliest, preferably within two months from the date of production of the copy of the order.

Specific Amendments Analysis

Not Applicable

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the non-surrender of a co-accused who was released on bail cannot be a germane factor to decline bail to another co-accused. This decision clarifies that each bail application must be considered on its own merits and reinforces the principle of individual justice in bail matters. This case does not change the previous position of law, but rather reiterates the existing principles of bail jurisprudence.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in the case of Sebil Elanjimpally vs. The State of Odisha clarifies that the non-surrender of a co-accused cannot be the sole reason for denying bail to another accused. The Court emphasized that each bail application must be evaluated based on its individual merits. This judgment reinforces the principle of individual justice and ensures that the actions of one accused do not unfairly prejudice another. The High Court has been directed to reconsider the appellant’s bail application, taking into account the principles laid down by the Supreme Court.