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: 2023 INSC 557

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

Can the actions of one accused person affect the bail prospects of another? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case concerning the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act). The Court examined whether a High Court could deny bail to an accused solely because a co-accused, previously granted bail, had failed to surrender. This judgment clarifies that the actions of one accused cannot be the sole basis for denying bail to another. The judgment was delivered by a bench comprising Justice K.M. Joseph and Justice Aravind Kumar.

Case Background

The appellant, Sebil Elanjimpally, was accused of offenses under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act, 1985. He had been in custody for two years and eleven months. The appellant had previously filed a bail application which was rejected on 07.07.2022. The present appeal arose from the rejection of his second bail application by the High Court.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The High Court rejected the appellant’s second bail application, citing the fact that a co-accused, who had been previously released on bail, had not surrendered. The High Court noted the appellant’s submission that his father had undergone surgery but still rejected the bail application and directed for expeditious disposal of the case. The appellant then appealed to 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 and its punishment.

The relevant part of Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 is as follows:

“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) 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;
(ii) where such contravention relates to clause (b), and—
(A) 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) 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) 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 should be considered on its own merits, irrespective of the actions of other accused persons.

The State argued that the High Court’s decision was justified due to the co-accused’s non-surrender, which could hinder the proceedings. The State also pointed out that the appellant’s previous bail application was rejected and that another attempt at securing bail from the High Court had failed.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The primary issue before the Supreme Court was:

1. Whether the fact that a co-accused, who was released on bail, has not surrendered can be a valid ground to deny bail to another co-accused.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court did not specifically cite any previous case laws or legal provisions other than Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act, 1985 in its reasoning.

Judgment

The Supreme Court held that the High Court’s reasoning for rejecting the bail application was flawed. The Court stated:

“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.”

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order and directed the High Court to reconsider the bail application. The Court also requested the High Court to dispose of the matter expeditiously, preferably within two months.

“In such circumstances, we are of the view that the matter must have reconsideration again at the hands of the High Court. The appeal is allowed. The impugned order is set aside.”

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the principle that each individual’s case for bail should be assessed on its own merits. The Court emphasized that the actions of a co-accused should not be a determining factor in deciding the bail application of another accused. The Court was concerned that the High Court had not considered the appellant’s case independently and had instead focused solely on the actions of a co-accused.

Key Takeaways

• The non-surrender of a co-accused who was released on bail is not a valid reason to deny bail to another co-accused.
• Bail applications must be considered on their individual merits.
• The actions of one accused person should not be the determining factor in deciding the bail application of another accused.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the High Court to reconsider the appellant’s bail application and dispose of the matter expeditiously, preferably within two months from the date of production of the copy of the order.

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 judgment reinforces the principle that bail decisions must be based on the individual merits of each case and not on the actions of others.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Sebil Elanjimpally v. The State of Odisha clarifies that the non-surrender of a co-accused is not a valid ground to reject the bail application of another accused. This ruling emphasizes the importance of considering each case on its individual merits, ensuring that bail decisions are not influenced by the actions of others.