Supreme Court Sets Aside Erroneous Bail Order in NDPS Case: Satpal Singh vs. State of Punjab (27 March 2018)

Date of the Judgment: 27 March 2018

Citation: 2018 INSC 259

Judges: Kurian Joseph, Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, Navin Sinha, JJ.

Can a court grant bail to an accused in a case involving commercial quantities of narcotics without considering the stringent conditions laid down in Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985? The Supreme Court addressed this critical question in a recent judgment, highlighting the importance of adhering to the specific legal requirements in drug-related cases. The Court found that the High Court had overlooked these requirements while granting anticipatory bail to the co-accused. This judgment underscores the need for strict compliance with the law, especially in cases involving serious drug offenses. The bench comprised Justices Kurian Joseph, Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, and Navin Sinha, with the judgment authored by Justice Kurian Joseph.

Case Background

The case originated from an FIR (First Information Report) filed on 11 June 2017, against Satpal Singh and others, under Sections 22 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act). The police had registered the case at Police Station Bhadson, District Patiala. Satpal Singh sought anticipatory bail from the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh, which was rejected on 4 October 2017. The High Court noted that a coordinate bench had granted anticipatory bail to Satpal Singh’s brothers, Beant Singh and Gurwinder Singh, but declined to grant bail to Satpal Singh, citing the limitations under Section 37 of the NDPS Act. Satpal Singh then approached the Supreme Court.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The High Court initially granted anticipatory bail to Beant Singh and Gurwinder Singh on 21 September 2017, without considering the limitations imposed by Section 37 of the NDPS Act. Subsequently, the High Court rejected Satpal Singh’s anticipatory bail application on 4 October 2017, correctly noting that Section 37 of the NDPS Act had not been considered in the previous order. The Supreme Court, upon noticing the discrepancy, directed the State of Punjab to clarify whether any steps had been taken to challenge the bail granted to the co-accused. When the State failed to take action, the Supreme Court directed the presence of the Secretary (Law) to explain the delay. Ultimately, the State filed a special leave petition to challenge the anticipatory bail granted to Beant Singh and Gurwinder Singh.

Legal Framework

The core legal provision at the heart of this case is Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. This section imposes stringent conditions for granting bail in cases involving offenses punishable under Section 19, 24, or 27A of the NDPS Act, and for offenses involving commercial quantities of narcotics. The provision states:

“Offences to be cognizable and non-bailable – (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) – (a) every offence punishable under this Act shall be cognizable; (b) no person accused of an offence punishable for [offences under section 19 or section 24 or section 27A and also for offences involving commercial quantity] shall be released on bail or on his own bond unless – (i) the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the application for such release, and (ii) where the Public Prosecutor opposes the application, 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.”

The Supreme Court emphasized that these limitations are in addition to those prescribed under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) or any other law in force on the grant of bail. The court noted that the lawmakers have consciously put such stringent restrictions on the discretion available to the court while considering applications for bail, given the seriousness of the offenses.

Arguments

The primary arguments revolved around the interpretation and application of Section 37 of the NDPS Act. Here’s a breakdown of the arguments:

• Appellant (Satpal Singh):
  • Argued for parity, seeking anticipatory bail similar to that granted to his co-accused brothers, Beant Singh and Gurwinder Singh.
• Respondent (State of Punjab):
  • Contended that the High Court’s order granting anticipatory bail to Beant Singh and Gurwinder Singh was erroneous because it did not consider the limitations under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.
  • Highlighted the seriousness of the offenses under the NDPS Act and the need for strict adherence to the legal requirements for granting bail.
  • Acknowledged the lackadaisical approach of the prosecution in not challenging the erroneous order promptly.

Innovativeness of the argument: The State of Punjab’s argument was innovative in that it highlighted the procedural lapse of the High Court and the lackadaisical approach of the prosecution, ensuring that the stringent provisions of the NDPS Act were upheld.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section, but the core issues addressed were:

1. Whether the High Court erred in granting anticipatory bail to Beant Singh and Gurwinder Singh without considering the limitations under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.
2. Whether the Sessions Court was correct in releasing Beant Singh and Gurwinder Singh on regular bail based on an interim order of the High Court.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The Supreme Court referred to the following authorities:

Judgment

The Supreme Court analyzed the submissions made by the parties and the authorities cited. Here’s how the court treated each submission and authority:

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily driven by the need to uphold the stringent provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act. The court emphasized that the High Court had failed to consider the mandatory requirements of this section while granting anticipatory bail to the co-accused. The court also expressed concern over the lackadaisical approach of the prosecution in not challenging the erroneous order promptly. The court’s reasoning was heavily influenced by the legal framework and the need to ensure that the law is strictly adhered to in cases involving serious drug offenses.

Logical Reasoning:

The court’s reasoning was clear: the High Court’s order was legally flawed because it did not adhere to the mandatory requirements of Section 37 of the NDPS Act. The Sessions Court further compounded the error by acting on an interim order. The Supreme Court rectified these errors by setting aside both orders and directing the accused to surrender.

The Supreme Court stated, “Under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, when a person is accused of an offence punishable under Section 19 or 24 or 27A and also for offences involving commercial quantity, he shall not be released on bail unless the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the application for such release, and in case a Public Prosecutor opposes the application, the court must be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the person is not guilty of the alleged offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.”

The court also noted, “It is unfortunate that the provision has not been noticed by the High Court. And it is more unfortunate that the same has not been brought to the notice of the Court.”

Further, the court observed, “In any case, the protection under Section 438, Cr.P.C. is available to the accused only till the court summons the accused based on the charge sheet (report under Section 173(2), Cr.P.C.). On such appearance, the accused has to seek regular bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. and that application has to be considered by the court on its own merits.”

There were no minority opinions in this case. The bench unanimously agreed on the decision.

Key Takeaways

• Strict adherence to Section 37 of the NDPS Act is mandatory when considering bail applications in cases involving commercial quantities of narcotics.
• Courts must be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty and is not likely to commit any offense while on bail before granting bail in such cases.
• An interim order of the High Court cannot be the basis for granting regular bail by the Sessions Court, especially when the matter has not been finally disposed of.
• Prosecution agencies must be vigilant and diligent in challenging erroneous orders to ensure that the law is upheld.
• The protection under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. (anticipatory bail) is available only until the court summons the accused based on the charge sheet. Subsequently, the accused must seek regular bail under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the following:

• The anticipatory bail granted to Beant Singh and Gurwinder Singh by the High Court on 21 September 2017 was set aside.
• The regular bail granted to Beant Singh and Gurwinder Singh by the Sessions Court on 31 October 2017 was also set aside.
• All three accused were directed to surrender before the trial court.
• The accused were given the liberty to apply for regular bail, which the Sessions Court would consider on its own merits.
• The Additional Chief Secretary, Home Affairs and Justice, was directed to conduct an inquiry into the lackadaisical attitude of the officials/officers involved in not bringing the matter before the Government despite the High Court pointing out the error in the bail order.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the limitations on granting bail as specified in Section 37 of the NDPS Act are mandatory and must be strictly adhered to. The Supreme Court clarified that the High Court cannot grant anticipatory bail without considering these limitations. This judgment reinforces the strict legal framework for dealing with drug-related offenses and emphasizes the need for courts to be vigilant in applying the law. This case also clarifies that an interim order cannot form the basis for granting regular bail.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s judgment in Satpal Singh vs. The State of Punjab underscores the importance of strict adherence to the legal framework, especially in cases involving serious drug offenses. The court set aside the erroneous bail orders of the High Court and the Sessions Court, directing the accused to surrender and apply for regular bail. This judgment serves as a reminder to lower courts and prosecution agencies to be vigilant and diligent in applying the law, particularly the stringent provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act.