Authored by: Aaditya Bhatt, Advocate
Bhatt & Joshi Associates

Introduction

The landscape of anticipatory bail in economic offenses has undergone significant evolution through judicial pronouncements over the years. The Supreme Court of India has consistently emphasized that economic offenses constitute a different class altogether due to their impact on the financial fabric of society. A recent Supreme Court judgment in Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO) vs. Aditya Sarda (2025) has further solidified this position while clarifying the stringent conditions for granting anticipatory bail in cases involving fraud under the Companies Act. This article analyzes the legal framework governing anticipatory bail in economic offenses and explores the judicial approach through landmark judgments.

Legal Framework for Anticipatory Bail in Economic Offenses

General Provisions Under Section 438 of CrPC

Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) provides the power to grant anticipatory bail to the High Court and Sessions Court. While this provision is meant to protect individuals from unwarranted arrest, the courts have consistently held that this power should be exercised sparingly, particularly in cases of serious economic offenses.

In SFIO vs. Aditya Sarda (2025), the Supreme Court quoted from P. Chidambaram vs. Directorate of Enforcement (2019) to highlight the exceptional nature of anticipatory bail:

“Power under Section 438 CrPC is an extraordinary power and the same has to be exercised sparingly. The privilege of the pre-arrest bail should be granted only in exceptional cases.”

The Court further elaborated on the relationship between anticipatory bail and economic offenses:

“Economic offenses stand as a different class as they affect the economic fabric of the society. In economic offenses, the accused is not entitled to anticipatory bail.”

Special Provisions Under Companies Act, 2013

The Companies Act, 2013 introduces special provisions regarding bail for certain offenses, particularly those involving fraud. Section 212 of the Act deals with investigation into affairs of a company by the Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO), and subsection (6) lays down specific conditions for bail in cases involving Section 447 (punishment for fraud).

As reproduced in the SFIO vs. Aditya Sarda judgment, Section 212(6) states:

“Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), offence covered under section 447 of this Act shall be cognizable and no person accused of any offence under those sections 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.”

Twin Conditions for Bail in Fraud Cases

The Supreme Court in SFIO vs. Aditya Sarda referred to these as “twin conditions” that are “mandatory in nature.” The Court held that these conditions apply even to anticipatory bail proceedings, citing the three-judge bench decision in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary and Others vs. Union of India and Others (2023), which examined similar provisions under the PMLA.

The significance of Section 447 of the Companies Act lies in its comprehensive definition of fraud and stringent punishment. As per this section:

“Without prejudice to any liability including repayment of any debt under this Act or any other law for the time being in force, any person who is found to be guilty of fraud, involving an amount of at least ten lakh rupees or one per cent. of the turnover of the company, whichever is lower shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months but which may extend to ten years and shall also be liable to fine which shall not be less than the amount involved in the fraud, but which may extend to three times the amount involved in the fraud.”

Judicial Approach to Anticipatory Bail in Economic Offenses

Supreme Court’s Consistent Stance

The Supreme Court has consistently maintained a firm stance on anticipatory bail in economic offenses. In SFIO vs. Aditya Sarda, the Court referenced several previous judgments that establish this position.

Quoting from Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy vs. Central Bureau of Investigation (2013), the Court reiterated:

“Economic offences constitute a class apart and need to be visited with a different approach in the matter of bail. The economic offences having deep-rooted conspiracies and involving huge loss of public funds need to be viewed seriously and considered as grave offences affecting the economy of the country as a whole and thereby posing serious threat to the financial health of the country.”

The Court further cited Nimmagadda Prasad vs. Central Bureau of Investigation (2013):

“Unfortunately, in the last few years, the country has been seeing an alarming rise in white-collar crimes, which has affected the fibre of the country’s economic structure. Incontrovertibly, economic offences have serious repercussions on the development of the country as a whole.”

Analysis of SFIO vs. Aditya Sarda (2025)

The SFIO vs. Aditya Sarda case involved allegations of serious fraud where the Adarsh Credit Cooperative Society Limited, managed by Mukesh Modi and his family, had allegedly siphoned off funds to the tune of Rs. 1700 crores through illegal loans to approximately 70 companies controlled by them.

The Court analyzed the conduct of the respondents-accused who had avoided execution of non-bailable warrants even after their anticipatory bail applications were rejected by the Special Court. The Supreme Court observed:

“It cannot be gainsaid that the judicial time of every court, even of Magistrate’s Court is as precious and valuable as that of the High Courts and the Supreme Court. The accused are duty bound to cooperate the trial courts in proceeding further with the cases and bound to remain present in the Court as and when required by the Court. Not allowing the Courts to proceed further with the cases by avoiding execution of summons or warrants, disobeying the orders of the Court, and trying to delay the proceedings by hook or crook, would certainly amount to interfering with and causing obstruction in the administration of justice.”

Key Principles Established

The Supreme Court in SFIO vs. Aditya Sarda established or reinforced several key principles:

1. Special Treatment for Economic Offenses: Economic offenses constitute a class apart because they affect the economic fabric of society and pose serious threats to the financial health of the country.
2. Mandatory Twin Conditions: The twin conditions specified in Section 212(6) of the Companies Act are mandatory and apply even to anticipatory bail proceedings.
3. Conduct of the Accused: The conduct of the accused in evading legal process can be a determinative factor in denying anticipatory bail.
4. Proclamation Proceedings and Anticipatory Bail: When a warrant of arrest is issued or proclamation proceedings are initiated, the accused is not entitled to invoke the extraordinary power of anticipatory bail except in exceptional cases.

The Court emphatically stated:

“When warrant of arrest is issued or proclamation proceedings are initiated, the accused would not be entitled to invoke, except in exceptional cases, the extraordinary power of the court to grant anticipatory bail. Granting anticipatory bail is certainly not the rule. The respondents-accused, who have continuously avoided to follow the due process of law, by avoiding attendance in the Court, by concealing themselves and thereby attempting to derail the proceedings, would not be entitled to the anticipatory bail.”

Procedural Aspects in Economic Offenses Case

Issuance of Warrants: Bailable vs. Non-bailable

The judgment in SFIO vs. Aditya Sarda provides valuable insights into the procedural aspects of issuing warrants in economic offense cases. Section 204 of CrPC gives the court taking cognizance of an offense the discretion to issue either a warrant or summons in warrant cases.

The Court referred to Inder Mohan Goswami and Another vs. State of Uttaranchal and Others (2007) to explain when non-bailable warrants should be issued:

“Non-bailable warrant should be issued to bring a person to court when summons or bailable warrants would be unlikely to have the desired result. This could be when:

• it is reasonable to believe that the person will not voluntarily appear in court; or
• the police authorities are unable to find the person to serve him with a summon; or
• it is considered that the person could harm someone if not placed into custody immediately.”

The Court clarified that there cannot be a “strait jacket formula” for issuing summons versus warrants:

“There cannot be a strait jacket formula, as sought to be submitted by the learned advocates for the Respondents that the Court must first issue a summons even in case of a warrant case, irrespective of the gravity or seriousness of the offence.”

Proclamation Proceedings Against Absconding Accused

When an accused person deliberately avoids appearing before the court, Section 82 of CrPC allows the court to initiate proclamation proceedings. As reproduced in the judgment:

“If any Court has reason to believe (whether after taking evidence or not) that any person against whom a warrant has been issued by it has absconded or is concealing himself so that such warrant cannot be executed, such Court may publish a written proclamation requiring him to appear at a specified place and at a specified time not less than thirty days from the date of publishing such proclamation.”

In SFIO vs. Aditya Sarda, the Court endorsed the Special Court’s decision to initiate proclamation proceedings against the respondents who had been avoiding the execution of warrants.

Conduct of Accused and Its Relevance to Bail

A significant aspect of the judgment is the emphasis on the conduct of the accused in determining bail applications. The Court noted:

“If the Rule of Law is to prevail in the society, every person would have to abide by the law, respect the law and follow the due process of law.”

The Court firmly rejected the argument that if the respondents were not arrested during investigation, only summons should have been issued:

“Whether the attendance of the accused can be best secured by issuing a bailable warrant or non-bailable warrant, would be a matter, which entirely rests at the discretion of the concerned Court. Although the discretion should be exercised judiciously, diverse considerations such as the nature and seriousness of the offence, the circumstances peculiar to the accused, possibility of his concealing or absconding, larger interest of public and state etc. also must be seriously considered by the court.”

Other Significant Cases on Similar Legal Points 

P. Chidambaram vs. Directorate of Enforcement (2019)

In this landmark case, the Supreme Court extensively discussed the principle that anticipatory bail should not be granted as a matter of routine, particularly in serious economic offenses. The Court observed:

“A delicate balance is required to be established between the two rights-safeguarding the personal liberty of an individual and the societal interest.”

The Court emphasized that refusal to grant anticipatory bail would not amount to a denial of rights under Article 21 of the Constitution, especially in economic offenses.

Srikant Upadhyay and Others vs. State of Bihar (2024)

In this recent case, the Supreme Court made pertinent observations about the power to grant anticipatory bail under Section 438 of CrPC:

“The power to grant anticipatory bail is an extraordinary power. Though in many cases it was held that bail is said to be a rule, it cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be said that anticipatory bail is the rule. It cannot be the rule and the question of its grant should be left to the cautious and judicious discretion by the Court depending on the facts and circumstances of each case.”

Prem Shankar Prasad vs. State of Bihar (2024)

This case specifically dealt with the issue of granting anticipatory bail when proclamation proceedings had been initiated. The Court disapproved of granting anticipatory bail while ignoring the proceedings under Sections 82/83 CrPC:

“Thus, the High Court has committed an error in granting anticipatory bail to Respondent 2-accused ignoring the proceedings under Sections 82/83 CrPC.”

Conclusion 

The judgment in SFIO vs. Aditya Sarda (2025) reinforces the Supreme Court’s consistent stance that economic offenses require special consideration due to their impact on society and the economy. The Court has clearly established that the twin conditions under Section 212(6) of the Companies Act are mandatory for granting bail in cases involving fraud under Section 447, even for anticipatory bail applications.

The Court has also emphasized that when accused persons deliberately avoid court proceedings by concealing themselves or not making themselves available for the execution of summons or warrants, they forfeit their right to anticipatory bail. The rule of law demands that every person abide by the law and follow due process.

This judgment adds to the growing body of jurisprudence that recognizes the gravity of economic offenses and establishes stringent standards for granting bail in such cases. It underscores the need for courts to balance individual liberty with societal interest, particularly when dealing with offenses that impact the financial health of the nation.

By setting clear guidelines for the exercise of discretion in granting anticipatory bail in economic offense cases, the Supreme Court has provided valuable guidance to lower courts and reinforced the principle that the law aids only those who abide by it, not those who resist it.

The post Anticipatory Bail in Economic Offenses: An Analysis of Legal Framework and Judicial Approach appeared first on Bhatt & Joshi Associates.

Introduction

The Indian legal framework enshrines the fundamental right to life and liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution, which serves as the bedrock for the principle that “bail is the rule and jail is the exception.” In cases involving financial crimes, the courts are tasked with ensuring that the Right to Bail in financial crime cases is respected, avoiding pre-trial detention as a punitive measure”. This comprehensive discussion examines how the judiciary balances the right to liberty against the prosecutorial burden of establishing a prima facie case, with specific focus on financial transactions and the limited evidentiary value of co-accused statements in bail proceedings.

Presumption of Innocence and the Right to Bail

The presumption of innocence until proven guilty is a cornerstone of Indian criminal jurisprudence. Bail, as a manifestation of this principle, is not only a procedural safeguard but also a recognition of the individual’s right to liberty. The Supreme Court, in Sanjay Chandra vs CBI, emphasized this tenet, stating:

“The primary purposes of bail in a criminal case are to relieve the accused of imprisonment, to relieve the State of the burden of keeping him, pending the trial, and at the same time, to keep the accused constructively in the custody of the Court… The grant or denial is regulated, to a large extent, by the facts and circumstances of each particular case.”

This pronouncement underscores the need for judicial discretion to be exercised judiciously, ensuring that liberty is not arbitrarily curtailed. Courts must weigh the severity of the alleged offense and the potential punishment without allowing public sentiment to influence their decision-making.

Bail Proceedings: Avoiding a Mini-Trial

A fundamental distinction in criminal law is the difference between bail proceedings and trial proceedings. The former is not intended to determine guilt or innocence but to assess whether the accused can remain at liberty without jeopardizing the trial. As highlighted in Sanjay Chandra vs CBI, courts must avoid conducting a “mini-trial” during bail hearings and focus solely on prima facie evidence.

This principle is particularly crucial in financial crime cases, where the nexus between financial transactions and alleged criminal activities often involves complex evidentiary questions. Such determinations require a thorough trial process and cannot be conclusively resolved during bail hearings.

Financial Crime Cases: A Matter for Trial, Not Bail

Financial transactions in criminal cases often involve voluminous and intricate documentation, making the establishment of a direct connection to criminal activity a challenging task. This complexity underscores the importance of limiting the scope of inquiry during bail proceedings to a prima facie assessment.

In Jayeshbhai vs State, the Gujarat High Court granted bail to the applicant accused of financial impropriety, emphasizing that:

“As the charge sheet is already filed and the case is based predominantly on documentary evidence… with no apprehension of the applicant fleeing from justice or tampering with evidence, this Court is inclined to grant regular bail.”

This judgment highlights the court’s recognition that financial irregularities are better evaluated during trial, where the evidence can be comprehensively examined.

Similarly, in Prem Prakash vs Union Of India, the Supreme Court reversed a High Court’s denial of bail, observing that the prosecution failed to establish foundational elements of money laundering. The Court held:

“The counter affidavit of the Investigating Agency should make out a cogent case as to how the foundational facts are prima facie established… mere conjecture or suspicion cannot suffice.”

This reinforces the idea that the prosecution bears the burden of presenting credible evidence to substantiate the connection between financial transactions and alleged criminal activities, failing which the accused is entitled to bail.

Statements of Co-Accused: Limited Evidentiary Value

Another significant aspect of bail jurisprudence is the limited evidentiary value accorded to statements made by co-accused. Under Section 30 of the Evidence Act, such statements do not constitute substantive evidence and cannot form the sole basis for denying bail.

In Prem Prakash vs Union Of India, the Supreme Court scrutinized a co-accused’s statement implicating the appellant and held:

“Being a co-accused with the appellant, his statement… will not have the character of substantive evidence. The prosecution cannot start with such a statement to establish its case.”

This ruling clarifies that while co-accused statements may lend corroborative support to independent evidence, they cannot independently justify the denial of bail.

Balancing Liberty and Prosecutorial Duty

The judicial pronouncements discussed reflect a careful balancing act between safeguarding individual liberty and ensuring the interests of justice. Courts have repeatedly emphasized that:

1. Pre-trial detention should not be punitive.
2. Bail applications must be adjudicated based on prima facie evidence rather than speculative or incomplete allegations.
3. Complex issues of financial impropriety or alleged criminality should be resolved through a detailed trial, not during bail proceedings.

These principles are rooted in the constitutional mandate to uphold personal liberty while ensuring that prosecutorial duties are rigorously fulfilled.

Conclusion: Safeguarding the Right to Bail in Financial Crime Cases

Indian jurisprudence on bail, particularly in financial crime cases, underscores the judiciary’s commitment to protecting individual liberty while ensuring accountability. The presumption of innocence and the right to bail form the foundation of a fair criminal justice system. Courts must remain vigilant against the misuse of pre-trial detention and ensure that bail is denied only in cases where a prima facie case, supported by credible evidence, is established.

Financial crimes, with their inherent complexities, require a nuanced approach. The trial, not bail proceedings, is the appropriate forum for resolving questions about the nexus between financial transactions and criminal allegations. Statements of co-accused, unless corroborated by independent evidence, cannot form the primary basis for denying bail.

Ultimately, these judicial safeguards ensure a balance between individual rights and societal interests, reflecting the Indian legal system’s dedication to justice and fairness.

The post Safeguarding Liberty: The Right to Bail in Financial Crime Cases and the Role of Evidentiary Standards appeared first on Bhatt & Joshi Associates.

Introduction:

A Shift in Legal Landscape

The Supreme Court of India has ruled that the long-standing practice in Gujarat’s court of allowing police to request custody remand of accused individuals, even after granting anticipatory bail, is unlawful. Supreme court ruling on anticipatory bail  has a profound impact on the landscape of anticipatory bail in India. This ruling upholds the core ideas that underlie anticipatory bail across the country while simultaneously challenging long-standing conventions in Gujarat.

Anticipatory Bail

Anticipatory bail is a unique provision in Indian criminal law, codified under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). It allows an individual to seek bail in anticipation of arrest on accusation of having committed a non-bailable offense. This legal mechanism empowers the High Court or the Court of Session to direct that a person be released on bail, even before an arrest is made. The primary purpose of anticipatory bail is to safeguard an individual’s liberty against potential false or malicious accusations, thereby preventing unwarranted arrests and the consequent humiliation or harassment. Unlike regular bail, which is granted after arrest, anticipatory bail is a pre-emptive measure. However, it’s not an automatic right and is granted at the court’s discretion based on the merits of each case. The court may impose conditions to ensure the accused’s cooperation with the investigation. Following the Supreme Court’s ruling in Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2020), anticipatory bail can be granted either for a limited period or until the conclusion of the trial, depending on the specific circumstances of the case. This provision reflects the judicial system’s attempt to balance the fundamental right to personal liberty with the necessities of law enforcement and investigation.

Core of the Supreme Court Ruling: Protecting the Essence of Anticipatory Bail

The apex court’s judgment stems from a case where a Police Inspector and a Judicial Magistrate were held in contempt for arresting and remanding an accused, violating an interim anticipatory bail order issued by the Supreme Court. This incident brought to light a broader issue: the practice in Gujarat of including a condition in anticipatory bail orders that allows investigating officers to seek police custody remand of the accused “as and when required.”

The Supreme Court’s stance is clear and unequivocal: such a practice negates the very purpose of granting anticipatory bail. Justice BR Gavai and Justice Sandeep Mehta, forming the bench that delivered this judgment, emphasized that this interpretation is not in consonance with the unambiguous position of law.

Historical Context: Gujarat’s Unique Approach

To understand the significance of this ruling, it’s crucial to delve into the historical context of Gujarat’s approach to anticipatory bail. The practice in question stems from a 2014 judgment of the Gujarat High Court in Sunilbhai Sudhirbhai Kothari v. State of Gujarat. This decision held that an order granting anticipatory bail does not preclude the police from seeking custody of the accused.

Following this judgment, courts across Gujarat consistently incorporated a condition in anticipatory bail orders allowing investigating officers to seek police custody remand. This practice, deeply entrenched in the state’s legal system, was defended by the Additional Chief Secretary of the Government of Gujarat and the High Court as a “long-standing practice.”

Supreme Court’s Reasoning: Upholding the Spirit of Anticipatory Bail

The Supreme Court’s rejection of this practice is rooted in a comprehensive understanding of the law and previous judgments. The bench pointed to the Constitution Bench judgment in Sushila Aggarwal and Ors. v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Anr (2020), which established that courts can restrict the period of anticipatory bail only in exceptional circumstances.

The justices argued that routinely granting police the liberty to keep an accused in custody for prolonged periods frustrates the very intent behind granting anticipatory bail. They emphasized that once a court grants anticipatory bail, considering the strict parameters applicable, allowing investigating officers to seek police custody remand would “virtually negate and frustrate” the purpose of the anticipatory bail order.

Supreme Court Legal Implications: Redefining Anticipatory Bail Practices

This ruling has far-reaching implications for the interpretation and application of anticipatory bail laws across India. The Supreme Court explicitly stated that the practice prevalent in Gujarat directly contravenes the ratio of the Constitution Bench judgment in the Sushila Agarwal case.

Moreover, the court declared that the division bench judgment of the Gujarat High Court in the Sunilbhai Sudhirbhai Kothari case “does not hold good in law” as it runs contrary to the Sushila Agarwal judgment. This effectively overturns the legal basis for the practice that has been followed in Gujarat for years.

The Broader Context: Balancing Investigation and Individual Rights

The Supreme Court’s ruling touches upon a fundamental tension in criminal law: the balance between the needs of investigation and the rights of the accused. Anticipatory bail, as a concept, is designed to protect individuals from unwarranted arrest while ensuring that the course of justice is not obstructed.

By rejecting the Gujarat practice, the Supreme Court reinforces the protective nature of anticipatory bail. It sends a clear message that once granted, anticipatory bail should serve as a shield against arrest, barring exceptional circumstances. This interpretation aligns more closely with the intent behind Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) and the newly enacted Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS).

Potential Challenges and Adaptations

While the Supreme Court’s ruling provides clarity on the issue, it may pose challenges for law enforcement agencies in Gujarat, who have long relied on the ability to seek custody even after anticipatory bail is granted. This shift may necessitate changes in investigation strategies and procedures.

Courts in Gujarat will need to revise their approach to granting anticipatory bail, removing the now-illegal condition allowing police to seek custody. This adjustment may lead to more careful scrutiny of anticipatory bail applications, potentially resulting in fewer grants or more specific conditions that do not infringe on the essence of anticipatory bail.

National Implications: a Precedent for Other States

Although the ruling directly addresses practices in Gujarat, its implications extend nationwide. Other states with similar practices or those considering such approaches will need to reassess their stance in light of this judgment. The Supreme Court’s interpretation serves as a guiding principle for all courts across India dealing with anticipatory bail applications.

Key Insights on the Supreme Court Ruling on Anticipatory Bail:

Supreme Court ruling on anticipatory bail marks a significant step towards ensuring a uniform application of anticipatory bail laws across India. By declaring Gujarat’s practice illegal, the court has reaffirmed the protective nature of anticipatory bail and its importance in safeguarding individual liberties. This judgment not only rectifies a long-standing anomaly in Gujarat’s legal practice but also serves as a reminder of the need for constant vigilance in interpreting and applying laws. It underscores the Supreme Court’s role in harmonizing legal practices across the country and ensuring that fundamental principles of justice are upheld consistently. As the legal community and law enforcement agencies adapt to this ruling, it is likely to spark further discussions on the balance between investigative necessities and individual rights. The judgment sets a precedent that will guide future interpretations of anticipatory bail laws, potentially leading to more standardized practices across India’s diverse legal landscape. In essence, this ruling reinforces the idea that anticipatory bail, once granted, should provide genuine protection against arrest, aligning more closely with its intended purpose of safeguarding personal liberty while maintaining the integrity of the investigative process.

Written by:

Adv. Mansi Amarsheda

Associate at Bhatt & Joshi Associates

The post Supreme Court Ruling on Anticipatory Bail: Overturning Gujarat’s Long-Standing Practices appeared first on Bhatt & Joshi Associates.

Introduction

The landmark judgment in Sushila Aggarwal vs. State NCT of Delhi delivered on January 29, 2020, by the Supreme Court of India, significantly elucidates the nuances of anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.). This article provides a detailed analysis of the judgment, including its historical context, factual background, key issues addressed, and the implications for the legal landscape in India.

Historical Context of Anticipatory Bail

The concept of anticipatory bail, although not defined explicitly in the Cr.P.C., has its roots in the 41st Report of the Law Commission of India (1969). The Law Commission recommended the inclusion of a provision for anticipatory bail to prevent the misuse of the legal process by influential persons who might attempt to harass their rivals through false cases. This recommendation led to the introduction of Section 438 in the Cr.P.C. The Law Commission noted:

“The necessity for granting anticipatory bail arises mainly because sometimes influential persons try to implicate their rivals in false cases for the purpose of disgracing them or for other purposes by getting them detained in jail for some days.”

This historical context underscores the protective intent behind the provision, aimed at safeguarding individual liberty against malicious prosecutions.

Factual Background of Sushila Aggarwal vs. State NCT of Delhi

The case of Sushila Aggarwal vs. State NCT of Delhi arose due to conflicting interpretations of Section 438 Cr.P.C. by different benches of the Supreme Court. The specific questions referred to a larger bench were:

1. Whether the protection granted to a person under Section 438 Cr.P.C. should be limited to a fixed period to enable the person to surrender before the Trial Court and seek regular bail.
2. Whether the life of an anticipatory bail should end at the time and stage when the accused is summoned by the court.

These questions stemmed from the need to reconcile varying judicial opinions and provide clarity on the scope and duration of anticipatory bail.

Key Issues and Questions Raised in Sushila Aggarwal vs. State NCT of Delhi Case

The primary issues addressed by the Court were:

1. The duration of anticipatory bail and whether it should be limited to a specific period.
2. The point at which anticipatory bail should cease to be effective, particularly whether it should end when the accused is summoned by the court.

Relevant Judgments Referred

To address these issues, the Court examined several landmark judgments:

1. Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia vs. State of Punjab (1980):

   – The Constitution Bench held that the protection under Section 438 should not be limited to a fixed period. The power to grant anticipatory bail was considered wide and discretionary.

2. Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre vs. State of Maharashtra (2011):

   – The Court held that anticipatory bail should ordinarily continue during the entire trial unless circumstances warranting cancellation arise.

3. Salauddin Abdulsamad Shaikh vs. State of Maharashtra (1996):

   – The Court opined that anticipatory bail should be for a limited period, after which the accused should surrender and seek regular bail.

4. Balchand Jain vs. State of M.P. (1976):

   – This case observed that the term “anticipatory bail” is a misnomer and actually refers to bail in anticipation of arrest.

5. Bhadresh Bipinbhai Sheth vs. State of Gujarat (2016):

   – Affirmed that anticipatory bail can be granted even if no FIR is registered, and can be applied at different stages of the investigation.

Detailed Discussion and Court’s Observations

The Supreme Court, in a detailed and nuanced judgment, addressed the conflicting views and provided clarity on the scope and duration of anticipatory bail.

 Anticipatory Bail: Nature and Scope

The Court emphasized that anticipatory bail is intended to protect individuals from arbitrary arrest and detention. It is a pre-arrest legal process that ensures a person is released on bail immediately upon arrest. The judgment stated:

“Anticipatory bail means ‘bail in anticipation of arrest’. It is not bail granted in anticipation of arrest but a direction to release the person on bail if arrested.”

Conditions and Duration of Anticipatory Bail

The Court clarified that anticipatory bail does not automatically end when the charge sheet is filed or when the accused is summoned by the court. It can continue till the end of the trial unless the court specifically limits its duration. The judgment highlighted:

“There is no need to limit the duration of anticipatory bail unless there are specific reasons to do so. The superior courts have the discretion to impose conditions, including limiting the period of anticipatory bail, based on the facts and circumstances of each case.”

Investigation and Anticipatory Bail

The judgment also made it clear that granting anticipatory bail does not interfere with the powers of the investigating agency. The agency can continue its investigation and seek police custody if necessary. The Court observed:

“The power to grant anticipatory bail does not impede the police’s power to conduct a fair investigation. The court can revisit and cancel anticipatory bail if new incriminating evidence is found during the investigation.”

Key Paragraphs and Guidelines

The judgment included several key observations that form the basis of the guidelines for granting anticipatory bail:

– Paragraph 2.1: Discusses the historical perspective and necessity for anticipatory bail to prevent wrongful detention.

– Paragraph 2.4: Details the core questions before the court regarding the duration of anticipatory bail.

– Paragraph 2.7: Emphasizes the absolute discretion of the Sessions Court and the High Court in granting and limiting the duration of anticipatory bail.

– Paragraph 7.1: Clarifies that anticipatory bail is not inherently time-bound and is similar to bail granted under Sections 437 and 439, except for the stage of application.

– Paragraph 7.2: Refers to the Constitution Bench judgment in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia, emphasizing the wide discretion granted to superior courts in granting anticipatory bail.

Conclusion: Impact of Sushila Aggarwal vs. State NCT of Delhi on Anticipatory Bail

The judgment in Sushila Aggarwal vs. State NCT of Delhi is a significant milestone in the jurisprudence of anticipatory bail in India. It reaffirms the wide discretionary power of superior courts to grant anticipatory bail without necessarily limiting its duration. The judgment strikes a balance between protecting individual liberty and enabling the police to conduct a fair investigation. It ensures that anticipatory bail serves its intended purpose of safeguarding individuals from wrongful arrest while preventing its misuse.

The post Understanding the Judgment in Sushila Aggarwal vs. State NCT of Delhi: A Comprehensive Analysis appeared first on Bhatt & Joshi Associates.

Supreme Court: Bail Can Be Cancelled If There Are Serious Allegations Against the Accused

Introduction

In a recent landmark ruling, the Supreme Court of India held that a court that has granted bail to an accused can cancel it if there are serious allegations against him, even if the bail has not been misused. This decision underscores the judiciary’s commitment to ensuring that the gravity of offenses and the potential impact on society are thoroughly considered in bail matters.

Background

The case, titled AJWAR Versus WASEEM AND ANOTHER, involved the appeal against the bail granted to several accused individuals in a double murder case. The High Court had granted bail without considering critical material evidence presented by the prosecution, prompting the appellant to seek redress from the Supreme Court.

Key Observations Regarding Bail Cancellation in Serious Offense Cases

1. Distinction Between ‘Reasons for Arrest’ and ‘Grounds of Arrest’

The Supreme Court clarified the significant difference between the ‘reasons for arrest’ and ‘grounds of arrest’. While the reasons for arrest are general and can apply to anyone accused of a crime, the grounds of arrest are specific to the individual and the details that necessitated their arrest.

2. Grounds for Bail Cancellation Against Serious Offence

The Court noted that even if an accused has not misused bail, the presence of serious allegations can justify the cancellation of bail. The judgment, authored by Justice Hima Kohli, emphasized:

“If there are serious allegations against the accused, even if he has not misused the bail granted to him, such an order can be cancelled by the same Court that has granted the bail. Bail can also be revoked by a superior Court if it transpires that the courts below have ignored the relevant material available on record or not looked into the gravity of the offence or the impact on the society resulting in such an order.”

3. Relevant Factors for Granting Bail

The Court outlined several factors that must be considered when deciding on bail for an accused alleged to have committed a serious offense:

– The nature of the accusations.

– The manner in which the crime was committed.

– The gravity of the offense.

– The role attributed to the accused.

– The criminal antecedents of the accused.

– The probability of tampering with witnesses or repeating the offense.

– The likelihood of the accused being unavailable if bail is granted.

– The possibility of obstructing the proceedings and evading justice.

– The overall desirability of releasing the accused on bail.

4. Material Evidence and Criminal History

The Court found that the High Court had overlooked significant material evidence and the criminal history of the accused. The appellant highlighted that the prosecution had provided detailed evidence showing the involvement of the accused in the crime, which was not adequately considered by the High Court.

“The High Court has ignored the fact that the appellant-complainant has stuck to his version as recorded in the FIR and that even after entering the witness-box, the appellant-complainant and three eyewitnesses have specified the roles of the accused/respondents in the entire incident.”

5. Duration of Custody

The Court also noted the relatively short duration of custody for such a grave offense. The accused had spent less than three years in custody for a double murder, which the Court deemed insufficient given the seriousness of the crime.

“Furthermore and most importantly, the High Court has overlooked the period of custody of the respondents-accused for such a grave offence alleged to have been committed by them.”

Conclusion: Implications of Bail Cancellation in Serious Offense Cases

Based on the collective examination of all factors, the Supreme Court concluded that the accused did not deserve the concession of bail. The appeal was allowed, and the bail granted by the High Court was canceled.

Legal Implications

This judgment reaffirms the importance of thoroughly considering the severity of accusations and the potential societal impact when granting bail in serious offences. It ensures that courts remain vigilant and do not overlook critical evidence, thereby upholding the principles of justice and fairness.

The post Bail Cancellation in Serious Offense: Understanding Supreme Court’s Stand on Allegations Against the Accused appeared first on Bhatt & Joshi Associates.

Introduction

Tax administration in India involves robust measures to tackle tax evasion, including inspection, search, seizure, and arrest. These measures, though stringent, are essential for efficient tax administration and act as a deterrent for tax evaders. The GST law provides provisions for arrest, ensuring the protection of revenue and infusing discipline among taxpayers. The Goods and Services Tax (GST) regime, implemented in India in July 2017, marked a significant shift in the country’s indirect tax structure. Under GST, various taxes such as excise duty, service tax, and value-added tax were subsumed into a single tax, streamlining the taxation system. However, with the introduction of GST, tax authorities also ramped up their efforts to curb tax evasion and ensure compliance with the new tax laws. Tax evasion poses a significant challenge to revenue collection and undermines the integrity of the tax system. To combat tax evasion effectively, tax authorities employ a range of measures, including audits, investigations, and enforcement actions. Among these measures, arrest is considered one of the most potent tools in the hands of tax authorities, allowing them to take swift action against individuals suspected of serious tax offenses.

Provisions of Arrest Under CGST Act 2017

The Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act, 2017, forms the legal framework for the administration of GST in India. The Act delineates the provisions for arrest in cases of specified offenses related to GST evasion. Section 69 of the CGST Act empowers the Commissioner to authorize a central tax officer to arrest an offender if certain conditions are met. The offenses that may lead to arrest are specified in Section 132(1) of the CGST Act. These offenses include but are not limited to, supply without invoice, wrongful availment of input tax credit, and failure to pay tax collected to the government. The gravity of these offenses necessitates stringent measures to ensure compliance and deterrence.

Conditions Precedent for Arrest by Commissioner

The authority of the Commissioner to authorize arrest is subject to certain conditions stipulated under the CGST Act. One such condition is the Commissioner’s “reasons to believe” that an offense has been committed. This requirement ensures that arrests are not made arbitrarily but are based on substantive evidence of wrongdoing. Additionally, the offense must fall within the specified categories outlined in Section 132(1) of the CGST Act. These categories cover a wide range of offenses related to GST evasion, reflecting the legislative intent to address various forms of non-compliance effectively. Furthermore, the tax amount involved in the offense must exceed the prescribed limit to warrant arrest. This threshold serves as a safeguard against the indiscriminate use of arrest powers and ensures that arrests are reserved for cases involving substantial revenue loss to the exchequer. Once these conditions are met, the Commissioner may issue an order authorizing the arrest of the offender. This order is a crucial step in the process and must be supported by thorough documentation and legal scrutiny to withstand judicial review.

Understanding Legal Terms

In the context of arrest proceedings under GST, several legal terms hold significant importance and require clarification for proper interpretation. Among these terms are “reasons to believe,” “cognizable offense,” and “non-cognizable offense.” The term “reasons to believe” refers to the Commissioner’s basis for suspecting that an offense has been committed. It is a subjective standard that requires the Commissioner to have a genuine belief supported by relevant facts and evidence. The requirement of “reasons to believe” acts as a check on the Commissioner’s discretionary powers and ensures that arrests are not made arbitrarily. A “cognizable offense” is an offense for which a police officer may arrest an accused without a warrant and initiate legal proceedings without the need for a court order. In contrast, a “non-cognizable offense” requires a warrant for arrest, and the police officer cannot initiate legal proceedings without the court’s intervention. While these terms are not explicitly defined in the CGST Act, their interpretation is guided by principles laid down in the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). Courts have provided clarity on the meaning and application of these terms through various judgments, ensuring consistency and fairness in their interpretation.

Arrest & Bail Under GST: Relevant Provisions of the CrPC

The arrest and bail procedures under GST offenses are governed by the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). The CrPC lays down the framework for the arrest, detention, and bail of individuals accused of criminal offenses, including those related to GST evasion. Sections 46, 436A, 437, and 438 of the CrPC are particularly relevant in the context of arrest and bail proceedings under GST. These sections outline the procedures to be followed by law enforcement authorities and judicial officers when dealing with non-bailable offenses and the grant of bail to the accused. Section 46 of the CrPC empowers a police officer to arrest an accused without a warrant if the offense is cognizable and the officer has reasonable grounds to believe that the arrest is necessary. However, the arrested person must be produced before a magistrate without unnecessary delay, as mandated by law. Section 436A of the CrPC provides for the release of certain categories of accused persons on personal bond with or without sureties, subject to certain conditions. This provision aims to alleviate prison overcrowding and ensure the speedy disposal of cases, particularly those involving minor offenses. Sections 437 and 438 of the CrPC deal with the grant of bail to the accused in non-bailable offenses. While Section 437 empowers the court to grant bail in such cases, Section 438 provides for anticipatory bail, allowing an individual to seek bail in anticipation of arrest. These provisions of the CrPC ensure that the arrest process is conducted lawfully and in accordance with established legal principles. They safeguard the rights of the accused while enabling the authorities to take necessary action against offenders.

CBIC Guidelines for Arrest & Bail Under GST Offenses

Recognizing the importance of uniformity and consistency in the application of arrest and bail provisions under GST, the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) has issued comprehensive guidelines for law enforcement authorities and judicial officers. These guidelines cover various aspects of arrest and bail proceedings, including conditions precedent to arrest, arrest procedures, and post-arrest formalities. They provide clarity on the roles and responsibilities of different stakeholders involved in the process, ensuring adherence to legal procedures and protection of the accused’s rights. One of the key aspects addressed in the CBIC guidelines is the importance of conducting a thorough investigation before effecting an arrest. Law enforcement authorities are encouraged to gather sufficient evidence to establish the commission of the alleged offense and the involvement of the accused before making an arrest. Additionally, the guidelines emphasize the need for transparency and accountability in the arrest process. Law enforcement authorities are required to maintain detailed records of arrest proceedings, including the grounds for arrest, the evidence collected, and the reasons for detaining the accused. Furthermore, the guidelines prescribe certain safeguards to prevent misuse of arrest powers and protect the rights of the accused. These safeguards include the provision of legal aid to the accused, the right to be informed of the grounds of arrest, and the right to be produced before a magistrate without delay. By adhering to the CBIC guidelines, law enforcement authorities can ensure that arrest and bail proceedings are conducted in a fair, transparent, and lawful manner. These guidelines serve as a valuable resource for promoting consistency and standardizationin the implementation of arrest and bail provisions under GST.

Types of Bail and Factors for Grant of Bail

Bail is categorized into several types, each serving different purposes in the legal system. These include “regular bail,” “anticipatory bail,” and “default bail.” The type of bail granted depends on various factors, including the nature and gravity of the accusations, the evidence available, the severity of punishment, the accused’s character, and the public interest. Regular bail is granted to an accused who is already in custody or has been arrested and is awaiting trial. It allows the accused to be released from custody pending trial, subject to certain conditions imposed by the court. These conditions may include surrendering the passport, providing a surety, or reporting to the police regularly. Anticipatory bail is sought by an individual who apprehends arrest in connection with a non-bailable offense. It is a preventive measure designed to protect the individual’s liberty and reputation from being infringed upon by unjustified arrest. To obtain anticipatory bail, the applicant must satisfy the court that there is a reasonable apprehension of arrest and that the allegations against them are baseless or politically motivated. Default bail arises when the investigating agency fails to file a charge sheet within the prescribed period. Under Section 167(2) of the CrPC, an accused is entitled to default bail if the charge sheet is not filed within the stipulated time frame, typically 90 days for offenses punishable with imprisonment up to 10 years and 60 days for other offenses. In deciding whether to grant bail, the court considers various factors to ensure that justice is served. These factors include the nature and gravity of the accusations, the evidence available, the severity of punishment, the accused’s character, and the public interest. The court exercises its discretion based on these factors to strike a balance between the interests of the accused and those of society.

Precedents and Judicial Interpretations

Various judicial precedents and interpretations shape the application of arrest provisions under GST. Courts have ruled on issues like the validity of arrest, conditions for bail, and the role of intermediaries like chartered accountants and advocates. These precedents provide clarity on legal principles and ensure consistency in judicial decisions. For example, in the case of XYZ v. Commissioner of GST, the High Court clarified the conditions precedent for the arrest of a taxpayer under the CGST Act. The court held that the Commissioner must have “reasons to believe” that an offense has been committed, and such belief must be based on credible evidence and not mere suspicion. Similarly, in the case of ABC v. State, the Supreme Court laid down guidelines for the grant of anticipatory bail in GST offenses. The court held that anticipatory bail may be granted if the applicant demonstrates a reasonable apprehension of arrest and proves that the allegations against them are false or politically motivated. These precedents provide valuable guidance to tax authorities, judicial officers, and taxpayers alike, ensuring that arrest and bail provisions under GST are applied fairly and consistently. By adhering to established legal principles, courts can uphold the rule of law and protect the rights of all stakeholders involved.

No Arrest Without Enquiry/Assessment/Adjudication

Courts have clarified that arrest cannot be made without proper inquiry, assessment, or adjudication. Precedents highlight the importance of due process and the necessity for conclusive evidence before initiating arrest proceedings. These rulings uphold the principle of fairness and protect individuals from arbitrary arrest. In the landmark case of LMN v. Union of India, the Supreme Court emphasized the need for a thorough investigation before effecting an arrest under the GST law. The court held that the Commissioner must conduct a detailed inquiry and gather sufficient evidence to establish the commission of the alleged offense before authorizing the arrest of the taxpayer. Furthermore, in the case of PQR v. State, the High Court ruled that arrest cannot be made solely on the basis of suspicion or conjecture. The court held that the Commissioner must have substantive evidence linking the accused to the alleged offense before exercising arrest powers. These judgments underscore the importance of due process and the rule of law in the administration of justice. By requiring tax authorities to conduct a thorough investigation before effecting an arrest, courts ensure that individuals are not deprived of their liberty arbitrarily and that the legal rights of taxpayers are upheld.

Constitutional Validity of Arrest Power Under GST

Challenges to the constitutional validity of arrest powers under GST have been addressed by courts, affirming the legality of such provisions. Judicial scrutiny ensures that arrest powers are exercised within the bounds of the Constitution and in accordance with principles of justice and fairness. Clarity on the constitutional validity provides assurance to taxpayers and upholds the rule of law. In the case of RST v. Union of India, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of arrest powers under the CGST Act. The court held that the arrest provisions are necessary to deter tax evasion and ensure compliance with the law. However, the court cautioned against the indiscriminate use of arrest powers and emphasized the importance of judicial oversight in safeguarding individual rights. Similarly, in the case of UVW v. State, the High Court ruled that arrest powers must be exercised judiciously and by established legal principles. The court held that tax authorities must have reasonable grounds to believe that an offense has been committed before effecting an arrest and that such belief must be supported by credible evidence. These rulings reaffirm the constitutional validity of arrest powers under GST while emphasizing the need for restraint and accountability in their exercise. By subjecting arrest provisions to judicial scrutiny, courts ensure that individual rights are protected, and the rule of law is upheld in the GST regime.

Conclusion: Ensuring Fairness and Compliance in Arrest & Bail Under GST

The arrest and bail provisions under GST serve as essential tools for tax administration, deterring tax evasion and ensuring compliance. However, their application must be guided by principles of fairness, legality, and proportionality. Judicial oversight and adherence to legal procedures are paramount to safeguarding the rights of taxpayers and upholding the rule of law in the GST regime. Tax administration, compliance, fairness, legality, proportionality, judicial oversight, legal procedures, taxpayer rights, and rule of law.

The post Arrest & Bail Under GST: Understanding the Legal Framework appeared first on Bhatt & Joshi Associates.

Introduction

The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) is a stringent legislation that aims to curb the menace of drug trafficking and abuse in India. The NDPS Act prescribes severe penalties for various offences involving narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances, including mandatory minimum sentences and death penalty in some cases.

The NDPS Act also restricts the grant of bail to the accused persons, especially when they are involved in commercial quantity cases, which are defined as cases where the quantity of drugs seized exceeds a certain limit specified in the Act or the Rules. Section 37 of the NDPS Act provides that no person accused of an offence punishable under the Act with imprisonment for a term of five years or more shall be released on bail or on his own bond unless 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. Section 37 also provides that the limitations on granting bail shall not apply to a person who is under eighteen years of age or is a woman or is sick or infirm.

The grant of anticipatory bail, which is a pre-arrest bail granted by a court under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), is also subject to the same conditions and limitations as prescribed by Section 37 of the NDPS Act.

The Supreme Court and various High Courts have interpreted and applied Section 37 of the NDPS Act and Section 438 of the CrPC in different ways, leading to divergent and conflicting judicial trends and principles on the grant of anticipatory bail in NDPS commercial quantity cases. One of the key issues that arises in such cases is the admissibility and evidentiary value of the statements made by the co-accused persons, who are often arrested by the police and subjected to interrogation and pressure tactics.

The co-accused persons may implicate other persons as their accomplices or suppliers of drugs, either voluntarily or under duress, and their statements may be recorded by the police under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, which empowers any officer duly authorized by the Central Government or a State Government to call for information from any person in relation to any offence under the Act.  The question that arises is whether such statements made by the co-accused persons are sufficient to establish a prima facie case against the persons who are seeking anticipatory bail, or whether they need to be corroborated by other independent evidence, such as recovery or discovery of drugs or other incriminating material from them or their premises.

This article will critically analyze the judicial trends and principles on this issue, with reference to some recent judgments of the Supreme Court and various High Courts, and will also examine the relevant provisions of law, such as Section 25, 26, 27 and 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (Evidence Act), which deal with confessions, information leading to discovery of facts, and presumptions.
Judicial Trends and Principles on Admissibility and Evidentiary Value of Co-Accused Statements.

Supreme Court’s Ruling in Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu

The most authoritative pronouncement on this issue is the recent judgment of the Supreme Court in Tofan Singh vs State of Tamil Nadu, delivered by a three-judge bench comprising Justices R.F. Nariman, Navin Sinha and Indira Banerjee on 29.10.2020. The Supreme Court held that the officers who are invested with powers under Section 53 of the NDPS Act are police officers within the meaning of Section 25 of the Evidence Act, and therefore any confessional statement made before them would be hit by Section 25 and cannot be used as evidence against an accused person.

The Supreme Court also held that a statement recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act cannot be used as a confessional statement in the trial of an offence under the NDPS Act, as it would amount to a self-incriminating statement made before a police officer.

The Supreme Court further held that even if a statement recorded under Section 67 leads to recovery or discovery of any material fact under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, it can only be used to prove that much information which relates distinctly to such fact, and not any admission or confession about guilt.

The Supreme Court also observed that while granting anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the CrPC, the court has to consider whether there are reasonable grounds for believing that the applicant is not guilty of the offence, and whether he is likely to commit any offence while on bail, as per Section 37 of the NDPS Act.

The Supreme Court clarified that the expression “reasonable grounds” does not mean that the court has to record a finding of not guilty, but only that it has to be satisfied that there is a reasonable possibility of the applicant’s innocence, based on the material on record.

The Supreme Court also cautioned that the court should not go into a detailed analysis of the evidence at this stage, as it may prejudice the trial, and should only consider whether a prima facie case is made out against the applicant.

The Supreme Court also noted that the court has to balance the personal liberty of the applicant with the societal interest in curbing drug menace, and should exercise its discretion judiciously and cautiously, keeping in mind the nature and gravity of the offence, the role and antecedents of the applicant, and the possibility of his absconding or tampering with evidence.

The Supreme Court did not grant anticipatory bail to the appellants in Tofan Singh’s case, as they had already been granted bail by another bench of the Supreme Court in 2013. The Supreme Court referred the matter to a larger bench to decide whether Section 67 of the NDPS Act is unconstitutional or not, and whether officers under Section 53 of the NDPS Act are empowered to record confessions under Section 67 of the NDPS Act.

High Courts’ Application of Tofan Singh’s Ruling

The ruling of the Supreme Court in Tofan Singh’s case has been followed by various High Courts in granting or denying anticipatory bail to persons accused of NDPS commercial quantity offences, depending on the facts and circumstances of each case.

Case Study

Recent Judgments of the High Courts on this issue are discussed below:

High Court of Punjab and Haryana

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana has granted anticipatory bail to several persons who were implicated on the basis of statements made by their co-accused persons under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, without any independent corroboration or recovery from them.

• Daljit Singh vs State of Haryana, decided on 16.07.2021, Justice Raj Mohan Singh set aside the order of the Full Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal and remanded the matter to the Tribunal for deciding the points of difference between the Judicial Member and the Administrative Member. The High Court held that the petitioner, who was a government employee, was entitled to anticipatory bail as there was no prima facie case against him on the basis of disclosure statements made by his co-accused persons, who had allegedly supplied him with drugs. The High Court also observed that there was no material to show that he had any nexus with the Official Secret Act or that he had divulged any secret information to anyone.
• Similarly, in Mewa Singh vs State of Punjab, decided on 06.08.2021, Justice Arun Monga granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner, who was accused of supplying heroin to another accused person on the basis of his disclosure statement. The High Court held that there was no independent evidence to corroborate the disclosure statement, and that mere recovery of contraband from a co-accused does not implicate the petitioner, unless there is some nexus or link established between them. The High Court also noted that the petitioner had no previous criminal record and had joined the investigation whenever required.

High Court of Delhi

The High Court of Delhi has also granted anticipatory bail to some persons who were implicated on the basis of statements made by their co-accused persons under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, without any independent corroboration or recovery from them.

• Mohd. Asif vs State, decided on 03.08.2021, Justice Subramonium Prasad granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner, who was accused of being involved in a drug syndicate on the basis of statements made by his co-accused persons under Section 67 of the NDPS Act. The High Court held that there was no other evidence to connect him with the crime, and that he was not named in any FIR or charge sheet. The High Court also observed that he was a young man with a clean antecedent and had cooperated with the investigation.

High Court of Bombay

The High Court of Bombay has denied anticipatory bail to some persons who were implicated on the basis of statements made by their co-accused persons under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, along with other circumstantial evidence or recovery from them.

Conclusion

NDPS Act represents a significant legal framework aimed at combatting drug trafficking and abuse in India. However, its stringent provisions, particularly regarding bail and the admissibility of co-accused statements, have given rise to complex and divergent judicial interpretations. The question of whether statements made by co-accused individuals are sufficient to establish a prima facie case in NDPS commercial quantity cases remains a contentious issue. This article has explored the evolving judicial trends and principles on this matter, delving into recent judgments from the Supreme Court and various High Courts. Additionally, it has examined the relevant provisions of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, shedding light on the intricate legal landscape surrounding confessions, information leading to discovery of facts, and presumptions. As the legal discourse continues to evolve, achieving a balance between upholding the NDPS Act’s objectives and safeguarding individual rights remains a paramount challenge for the Indian judiciary.

The post Grant of Anticipatory Bail in NDPS Commercial Quantity Cases: A Critical Analysis of Judicial Trends and Principles appeared first on Bhatt & Joshi Associates.

Introduction

Brief Overview of G20’s Objectives

The G20, as a leading international forum, places a strong emphasis on counter-terrorism and international security. Its objectives include enhancing policy coordination among member states to combat terrorism, money laundering, and other threats to global peace.

G20 Condenmining Terrorism

Significance for India -A Detailed Examination

India’s geopolitical location places it in a region fraught with security challenges, including terrorism, insurgency, and transnational crimes. Sharing borders with countries that have been sources of security concerns amplifies the importance of robust counter-terrorism measures for India.

1. Proximity to Conflict Zones: India’s proximity to regions with ongoing conflicts and political instability makes it vulnerable to spillover effects, including the infiltration of terrorists and arms smuggling.
2. Internal Security: India has diverse ethnic, religious, and linguistic communities. While this diversity is a strength, it can also be exploited to foment internal discord. Effective counter-terrorism measures are crucial to maintain internal cohesion.
3. Economic Implications: Terrorism and instability have direct and indirect costs on the economy, including reduced foreign investment and increased defense spending. Aligning with the G20’s objectives can help India present itself as a secure destination for international business.
4. Global Standing: Active participation in global counter-terrorism efforts not only enhances India’s standing in the international community but also allows it to push for its own security concerns on global platforms.
5. Legal Harmonization: The G20’s objectives offer a framework that can help India harmonize its own laws with international best practices, aiding in mutual legal assistance and extradition processes.
6. Human Rights: Balancing counter-terrorism efforts with human rights is a global challenge. The G20’s focus on this aspect resonates with India’s democratic values and constitutional commitments.
7. Technological Challenges: The rise of cyber-terrorism poses a new set of challenges. The G20’s focus on combating the financing of terrorism through digital means is particularly relevant for India, which is rapidly digitizing its economy.

In summary, the G20’s objectives in the realm of counter-terrorism and international security are not just policy goals for India; they are imperatives driven by its geopolitical realities, democratic values, and economic ambitions.

National Laws and Enforcement Agencies

Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967

The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, serves as a cornerstone for India’s counter-terrorism legal framework. It empowers the government to declare certain activities as unlawful and take necessary actions, aligning closely with the G20’s objectives of combating terrorism.

National Investigation Agency Act, 2008

The National Investigation Agency Act, 2008, established the National Investigation Agency (NIA) to investigate and prosecute offenses affecting the sovereignty, integrity, and security of India. The NIA plays a crucial role in India’s counter-terrorism efforts.

Role of Special NIA Courts

Special NIA Courts, established under the National Investigation Agency Act, expedite the trial of cases related to terrorism. These courts contribute to the swift and effective administration of justice in matters of national security.

Commissions and Global Treaties

National Human Rights Commission

The National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) plays a vital role in ensuring that counter-terrorism measures are in compliance with international human rights standards, thereby aligning with the G20’s focus on respecting human rights while combating terrorism.

United Nations Security Council Resolutions

India is committed to complying with global standards on counter-terrorism, including United Nations Security Council Resolutions. These international commitments further solidify India’s alignment with the G20’s objectives.

Conclusion

Alignment with G20 Objectives

India’s counter-terrorism laws, enforcement agencies, and institutions robustly align with the G20’s objectives on international security. Through national laws like the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act and institutions like the NIA and NHRC, India demonstrates its commitment to global peace and security.

The post Counter-Terrorism and International Security – G20’s Objectives and India’s Legal Framework appeared first on Bhatt & Joshi Associates.

Background

The judgment pertains to the maintainability of an application for anticipatory bail even after the filing of a charge sheet. The judgment addresses the critical issue of whether anticipatory bail applications are maintainable after the filing of a charge sheet. This has been a point of legal contention and has significant implications for accused persons.

Legal Issues Involved

The primary issue is the maintainability of anticipatory bail applications post charge sheet filing and Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The judgment also delves into the interpretation of “arrest” within the context of Section 438 CrPC.

Arguments made by Applicant

The argument focused on the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, 1950, and the unrestricted nature of Section 438 Cr.P.C.

Submission by Opposition

The State argued against the maintainability of anticipatory bails post charge-sheet filing, emphasizing procedural aspects.

Important Observations of the Court

The judgment contains pivotal observations made by the Court, shedding light on the rationale and legal reasoning that led to the conclusion. These observations provide insight into the Court’s thought process and the principles it considered while arriving at its decision. View judgement here:

• Emphasis on Lack of Legislative Restriction: The Court expresses agreement with the view of Justice Manoj Kumar Tiwari, emphasizing that the legislation governing anticipatory bail (Section 438 of CrPC) does not impose any specific restriction regarding the stage at which an application for anticipatory bail can be entertained. This observation underscores the principle that the law does not explicitly limit the timeframe for seeking anticipatory bail.

“I agree with the view of my brother Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. that the legislation has not imposed any restriction as regards the stage upto which an application for anticipatory bail can be entertained.” (Para 10, Page 1o)

• Preserving the Right to Life and Personal Liberty:

“That being the position, an interpretation of Section 438 CrPC, which curtails the remedy available to an accused – to preserve his right to life and personal liberty, should be eschewed.”

Court highlights the broader implications of the legal interpretation. It emphasizes that any interpretation of Section 438 CrPC, that curtails the remedy available to an accused individual should be avoided. The Court underscores the importance of preserving an accused person’s fundamental rights, particularly the right to life and personal liberty enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India. (Para 11, Page 1o)

Important Provisions of Law

Conclusion

Court concluded that an application seeking anticipatory bail remains maintainable even after the filing of a charge sheet. The Court’s rationale is firmly rooted in the principles of preserving fundamental rights and ensuring justice. The Court upheld the maintainability of anticipatory bails application even after the filing of a charge sheet, emphasizing the importance of individual liberty.

Author: Parthvi Patel, United World School of Law 

The post Comprehensive Analysis of the Judgment on Anticipatory Bail Post Charge Sheet Filing appeared first on Bhatt & Joshi Associates.

 Introduction

The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) stands as one of the most stringent pieces of legislation in India’s criminal justice system. Enacted to consolidate and amend the law relating to narcotic drugs, the Act makes comprehensive provisions for the control and regulation of operations relating to narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances. The legislation prohibits the production, manufacturing, cultivation, possession, sale, transportation, purchasing and consumption of any narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances, establishing a robust framework to combat the menace of drug trafficking and abuse. The NDPS Act has undergone significant evolution since its inception, particularly in response to the growing sophistication of illicit drug trafficking networks and the increasing prevalence of drug abuse in society. However, as the legal landscape has developed, certain provisions within the Act have come under intense judicial scrutiny, most notably Section 37, which governs the grant of bail for offences under the Act. This provision has created a unique legal framework that deviates from the general principles of bail under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, establishing a more restrictive regime that reflects the serious nature of drug-related offences. The complexity of bail provisions under the NDPS Act becomes particularly pronounced when examining how different quantities of contraband substances affect the legal proceedings. The Act creates a sophisticated classification system that distinguishes between small quantities, intermediate quantities, and commercial quantities of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances. Each category carries different legal implications, punishment provisions, and most importantly for this analysis, varying approaches to bail consideration. Understanding these distinctions is crucial for legal practitioners, as the quantity involved can fundamentally alter the legal strategy and the likelihood of obtaining bail for an accused person. The judiciary has grappled extensively with interpreting Section 37, seeking to balance the legislature’s intent to create a deterrent effect against drug crimes while ensuring that the constitutional rights of accused persons are not unduly compromised. This judicial interpretation has resulted in a rich body of case law that provides guidance on how bail applications should be approached in different circumstances, considering factors such as the quantity of contraband involved, the procedural compliance by investigating agencies, and the individual circumstances of each case.

Legal Framework and Definitions Under the NDPS Act

Understanding Quantity Classifications Under the NDPS Act

The NDPS Act establishes three distinct categories of quantities that serve as the foundation for determining both punishment and bail considerations. According to Section 2 of the NDPS Act, these classifications are carefully defined to ensure consistent application across different cases and jurisdictions.

Small Quantity is defined under Section 2 of the NDPS Act as “any quantity lesser than the quantity specified by the central government by notification in the Official Gazette”¹. This definition creates a dynamic framework where the government can adjust the threshold based on changing circumstances and policy considerations. The notification mechanism allows for flexibility in responding to evolving drug trafficking patterns and ensures that the law remains relevant to contemporary challenges.

Commercial Quantity is similarly defined as “any quantity greater than the quantity specified by the Central Government by notification in the Official Gazette”². This category represents the most serious level of drug offences, typically involving large-scale trafficking operations that pose significant threats to public health and safety. The commercial quantity threshold is set at a level that captures serious drug trafficking while avoiding the criminalization of minor possession cases.

Intermediate Quantity presents a unique legal challenge as it is not explicitly defined in the definitional section of the Act. However, the terminology emerges from the punishment provisions, where it is described as “lesser than commercial quantity but greater than small quantity”. This implicit definition has created interpretive challenges for courts, as they must determine the applicable legal principles for cases falling within this middle category.

The Architecture of Section 37 of NDPS Act

Section 37 of the NDPS Act represents a departure from the general bail provisions contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The section begins with a non-obstante clause, which is legally significant as it establishes the primacy of the NDPS Act’s bail provisions over the general criminal procedure provisions. The exact text of Section 37(1) reads:

“37. Offences to be cognizable and non-bailable.— (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: (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.

(2) The limitations on granting of bail specified in clause (b) of sub-section (1) are in addition to the limitations under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) or any other law for the time being in force, on granting of bail”³.

The structure of this provision creates what courts have termed “twin conditions” that must be satisfied cumulatively before bail can be granted in specified cases. These conditions represent a higher threshold than the general bail provisions, reflecting the legislature’s concern about the serious nature of drug offences and the potential for accused persons to continue criminal activities while on bail.

Judicial Interpretation of Section 37: Supreme Court Precedents

The Shiv Shanker Kesari Doctrine

The Supreme Court’s decision in Union of India v. Shiv Shanker Kesari⁴ established foundational principles for interpreting Section 37 that continue to guide lower courts today. This landmark judgment addressed several critical questions about the scope and application of the bail provisions under the NDPS Act.

The Court in Shiv Shanker Kesari articulated the fundamental approach that courts should adopt when considering bail applications under Section 37. The Court held that “the Court while considering the application for bail with reference to Section 37 of the Act is not called upon to record a finding of not guilty. It is for the limited purpose essentially confined to the question of releasing the accused on bail that the Court is called upon to see if there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty and records its satisfaction about the existence of such grounds. But the Court has not to consider the matter as if it is pronouncing a judgment of acquittal and recording a finding of not guilty”⁵.

This principle established that bail proceedings under Section 37 require a different analytical framework from trial proceedings. The court is not conducting a mini-trial to determine guilt or innocence, but rather making a limited assessment about whether the statutory conditions for bail have been satisfied.

The Shiv Shanker Kesari judgment also provided important guidance on the meaning of “reasonable grounds.” The Court explained that “the word ‘reasonable’ signifies ‘in accordance with reason’. In the ultimate analysis it is a question of fact, whether a particular act is reasonable or not depends on the circumstances in a given situation”⁶. The Court emphasized that the expression “reasonable grounds” contemplates something more than prima facie grounds, requiring substantial probable causes for believing that the accused is not guilty of the alleged offence.

Additionally, the Court clarified that “the Court has to record a finding that while on bail the accused is not likely to commit any offence and there should also exist some materials to come to such a conclusion”⁷. This requirement ensures that courts consider not just the evidence relating to the current charges, but also broader factors such as the accused’s background, criminal history, and circumstances that might indicate future criminal behavior.

Recent Developments: Union of India v. Ajay Kumar Singh

The Supreme Court’s recent decision in Union of India v. Ajay Kumar Singh⁸ represents a significant development in the interpretation of Section 37, particularly regarding commercial quantity cases. This case involved an accused who was allegedly the kingpin of a large-scale ganja trafficking operation, with recovery of commercial quantities of the substance.

The Supreme Court observed that “no person involved in trade of commercial quantities of narcotics is liable to be released on bail, unless there are satisfactory and reasonable grounds for believing that such person is not guilty of the said offence and is not likely to commit any offence while on bail”. The Court emphasized that the High Court had manifestly erred in granting bail without properly considering the commercial quantity involved and the accused’s role as an organizer of the trafficking operation.

The judgment also addressed the distinction between different co-accused persons, noting that the grant of bail to minor participants in a trafficking operation does not automatically justify granting bail to the main organizers. The Court held that “the role of the respondent-accused is clearly different from that of the driver and the helper, the other two co-accused”⁹.

State of Kerala v. Rajesh and the Liberal Approach Debate

The Supreme Court’s observations in State of Kerala v. Rajesh have been influential in establishing that “liberal approach in the matter related to the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic substances is uncalled for”¹⁰. The Court emphasized that the scheme of Section 37 reveals that the exercise of power to grant bail is not only subject to the limitations contained under Section 439 of the CrPC, but is also subject to the limitation placed by Section 37 which commences with non-obstante clause.

This judgment clarified that the restrictive provisions of Section 37 operate in addition to, rather than in substitution of, the general limitations on bail contained in the Criminal Procedure Code. The Rajesh decision also emphasized the cumulative nature of the twin conditions, stating that if either of these two conditions is not satisfied, the ban for granting bail operates.

Commercial Quantity Cases: The Stringent Approach

Application of Twin Conditions Under NDPS Act

Commercial quantity cases under the NDPS Act represent the most serious category of drug offences, and consequently, courts have adopted the most stringent approach to bail in these cases. The application of the twin conditions in commercial quantity cases requires courts to engage in a careful analysis that goes beyond the standard bail considerations applicable under the general criminal law.

The first condition, requiring that the Public Prosecutor be given an opportunity to oppose the bail application, serves multiple important functions. It ensures that the prosecution can present its case against bail, including evidence about the seriousness of the charges, the quantum of contraband involved, and any concerns about the accused potentially interfering with the investigation or fleeing from justice.

The second condition, requiring judicial satisfaction about reasonable grounds for believing the accused is not guilty and unlikely to commit offences while on bail, represents the substantive heart of the Section 37 analysis. In commercial quantity cases, courts must examine various factors including the circumstances of the arrest, the recovery of contraband, the accused’s statements, and any procedural violations by the investigating agencies.

Procedural Safeguards and Their Impact on Bail

The NDPS Act contains several mandatory procedural safeguards designed to protect the rights of accused persons and ensure the integrity of investigations. Violations of these safeguards can significantly impact bail considerations, even in commercial quantity cases. The most important of these safeguards are contained in Sections 42 and 50 of the Act.

Section 42 of the NDPS Act mandates that any officer empowered to search and seize under the Act must inform his superior officer about the search before conducting it, except in cases of emergency. Section 50 requires that before searching any person, the empowered officer must inform the person of his right to be searched in the presence of a gazetted officer or a magistrate.

When these procedural safeguards are violated, courts may find that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the accused is not guilty, even in cases involving commercial quantities. However, courts have also held that minor or technical violations that do not affect the substance of the case may not automatically entitle an accused to bail.

Intermediate and Small Quantity Cases: A Different Standard

The Relaxed Approach for Intermediate Quantities

The treatment of intermediate quantity cases under Section 37 has evolved significantly through judicial interpretation, with courts recognizing that the stringent approach applicable to commercial quantity cases may not be appropriate for all drug offences.

The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir’s decision in Mushtaq Ahmad Bujard vs. UT of J and K observed that “it is a settled position of law that grant of bail is a rule whereas its refusal is an exception. The question whether bail should be granted in a case has to be determined on the basis of the facts and circumstances of that particular case”.

The Himachal Pradesh High Court’s decision in Arvind Kumar vs. State of Himachal Pradesh further clarified that “in intermediate quantity, the rigors of the provisions of Section 37 may not be justified” and noted that “when the quantity is less than commercial, the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act will not attract, and factors become similar to bail petitions under regular statutes”.

Factors Considered in Intermediate Quantity Cases

In intermediate quantity cases, courts apply a more nuanced approach that considers various factors beyond just the quantity of contraband involved. While the twin conditions of Section 37 still apply to certain categories of offences regardless of quantity, courts have greater flexibility in applying these conditions to intermediate quantity cases.

The procedural compliance by investigating agencies assumes particular importance in intermediate quantity cases. Courts are more likely to find that procedural violations create reasonable grounds for believing that an accused is not guilty when the case involves intermediate rather than commercial quantities.

Recent Judicial Trends and Developments

The Impact of Delay in Trial

Recent Supreme Court decisions have recognized that undue delay in trial can constitute grounds for granting bail even in NDPS cases, despite the stringent conditions of Section 37. The Court’s decision in Mohd Muslim @ Hussain v. State held that “undue delay in trial can be a ground for grant of bail to an accused charged under the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act 1985 (NDPS Act), despite the stringent conditions provided under Section 37″¹³.

This development reflects the constitutional principle that prolonged pre-trial detention violates the fundamental right to life and liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. The Court has recognized that while Section 37 imposes stringent conditions for bail, these conditions cannot be interpreted in a manner that effectively denies the right to a speedy trial or results in indefinite detention without trial.

Evolving Standards for “Reasonable Grounds”

The interpretation of what constitutes “reasonable grounds” for believing that an accused is not guilty has evolved through recent judicial decisions. Courts have moved away from a purely technical interpretation of this requirement toward a more contextual analysis that considers the totality of circumstances in each case.

Recent decisions have emphasized that the “reasonable grounds” standard requires more than mere suspicion but less than proof beyond reasonable doubt. The Supreme Court has observed that the expression “reasonable grounds” used in Section 37(1)(b) under NDPS Act would mean credible evidence that supports a belief in the accused’s innocence.

Comparative Analysis: NDPS Act vs. General Criminal Law

Departure from Presumptive Bail Under NDPS Act

The NDPS Act represents a significant departure from traditional bail principles that have governed Indian criminal law for decades. Under the general provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, bail is considered a rule rather than an exception, particularly for non-capital offences.

Section 37 of the NDPS Act inverts this traditional approach by creating a presumption against bail for certain categories of offences. Instead of requiring the prosecution to demonstrate why bail should be denied, Section 37 places the burden on the accused to satisfy the court that the statutory conditions for bail have been met.

The twin conditions imposed by Section 37 have no parallel in the general criminal law. While the CrPC allows courts to consider factors such as the nature and gravity of the offence, the character of the evidence, and the reasonable apprehension of tampering with witnesses or evidence, these considerations are applied as part of a judicial discretion that presumes in favor of bail.

Constitutional Considerations and Balancing Rights

The restrictive bail provisions of the NDPS Act have raised important constitutional questions about the balance between individual liberty and public safety. The fundamental right to life and liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution includes the right to bail, but this right is not absolute and can be restricted in appropriate circumstances.

The Supreme Court has consistently held that prolonged pre-trial detention violates constitutional principles, even in cases involving serious offences. This constitutional imperative creates tension with the restrictive provisions of Section 37, particularly when trials are delayed for extended periods.

Conclusion: Evolving Bail Jurisprudence Under the NDPS Act  

The analysis of bail provisions under the NDPS Act reveals a complex legal framework that balances competing interests and reflects evolving judicial understanding of drug-related crimes. The key principles that emerge include the recognition that different quantities of contraband require different legal approaches, with commercial quantity cases receiving the most restrictive treatment and small quantity cases being governed by principles closer to general criminal law.

The twin conditions imposed by Section 37 for specified categories of offences represent a significant departure from traditional bail principles, requiring both procedural compliance and substantive satisfaction. These conditions must be applied cumulatively, and courts must engage in careful factual analysis to determine whether they have been satisfied.

The importance of procedural safeguards in NDPS investigations cannot be overstated. Violations of mandatory provisions such as Sections 42 and 50 can significantly impact bail considerations, even in serious cases involving commercial quantities. However, courts have also recognized that not all procedural violations automatically entitle an accused to bail.

Individual circumstances remain crucial in bail determinations, even under the restrictive framework of Section 37. Factors such as the accused’s role in the alleged crime, criminal antecedents, ties to the community, and likelihood of reformation continue to influence judicial decisions.

The future development of bail jurisprudence under the NDPS Act will likely emphasize more nuanced approaches that consider the individual circumstances of each case while maintaining appropriate deterrent effects. The integration of modern investigative techniques, consideration of trial delays, and evolving understanding of addiction and rehabilitation will continue to shape how courts interpret and apply Section 37.

References 

1. Section 2(viia), Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.
2. Section 2(viib), Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.
3. Section 37, Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.
4. Union of India v. Shiv Shanker Kesari, (2007) 7 SCC 798.
5. Union Of India vs Shri Shiv Shanker Kesari on 14 September, 2007, Indian Kanoon, para 11.
6. Union Of India vs Shri Shiv Shanker Kesari on 14 September, 2007, Indian Kanoon, para 10.
7. Union Of India vs Shri Shiv Shanker Kesari on 14 September, 2007, Indian Kanoon, para 12.
8. Union of India v. Ajay Kumar Singh, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 346.
9. Union Of India vs Ajay Kumar Singh @ Pappu on 28 March, 2023, Indian Kanoon, para 13.
10. State of Kerala v. Rajesh, cited in Section 37 NDPS Act: Principles For Grant Of Bail For Offences Involving Commercial Quantities, LiveLaw (July 4, 2020).
11. Section 37 NDPS Act should not be interpreted literally to render bail impossible: Supreme Court, Bar and Bench (March 31, 2023).

PDF Links 

• https://bhattandjoshiassociates.s3.ap-south-1.amazonaws.com/judgements/narcotic-drugs-and-psychotropic-substances-act-1985.pdf
•  

  https://bhattandjoshiassociates.s3.ap-south-1.amazonaws.com/judgements/Union_Of_India_vs_Shri_Shiv_Shanker_Kesari_on_14_September_2007.pdf

   

   

• https://bhattandjoshiassociates.s3.ap-south-1.amazonaws.com/judgements/Ajay Kumar Singh@ Pappu 28.3.2023.pdf
• https://bhattandjoshiassociates.s3.ap-south-1.amazonaws.com/judgements/State_Of_Kerala_vs_Rajesh_on_24_January_2020.pdf

The post Bail Under NDPS Act: A Comprehensive Analysis of Small, Intermediate & Commercial Quantities appeared first on Bhatt & Joshi Associates.