Facts of the Case

The applicant, Rahul Jaiswal, filed a bail application seeking release in connection with Case Crime No. 152 of 2022 registered under Sections 8, 21 and 22 of the NDPS Act, 1985 at Police Station Kothibhar, District Maharajganj. The prosecution alleged offences relating to narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances.

The applicant claimed that he is a valid licence holder under the Drugs and Cosmetics laws and had legally purchased the medicines in question. To support his claim, he produced GST invoices and purchase bills issued by the manufacturing company. He asserted that all statutory conditions governing the sale and possession of medicines had been duly complied with and that the provisions of the NDPS Act were wrongly invoked against him.

 

Issues Involved

  1. Whether the applicant was entitled to bail under Sections 37 and 50 of the NDPS Act.
  2. Whether the possession of medicines supported by valid licences and GST purchase documents prima facie weakened the prosecution case.
  3. Whether the applicant was entitled to bail on the ground of parity with the co-accused who had already been granted bail.
  4. Whether the facts and circumstances justified grant of bail without expressing any opinion on the merits of the prosecution case.

 

Petitioner's Arguments

The petitioner submitted that:

  • He is innocent and has been falsely implicated.
  • He possesses a valid licence for dealing in drugs and cosmetics.
  • The medicines were lawfully purchased and supported by genuine GST invoices and purchase bills.
  • All statutory requirements applicable to the licensed business were complied with.
  • The alleged offences under Sections 8, 21 and 22 of the NDPS Act were not attracted on the facts of the case.
  • A co-accused, Jalal Ahmad, having an identical role, had already been granted bail by the High Court, and therefore the applicant was entitled to similar relief on the principle of parity.
  • He had no previous criminal antecedents.
  • He had remained in judicial custody since 24.07.2022.
  • He undertook not to misuse the liberty of bail and assured full cooperation during the trial.
  • It was argued that compliance with Section 50 of the NDPS Act involved disputed questions of fact which could only be determined during trial, and prima facie non-compliance of the mandatory provision entitled the applicant to consideration for bail under Section 37 of the Act.

 

Respondent's Arguments

The State opposed the bail application.

The learned A.G.A. relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Union of India vs. Shiv Shankar Keshari (2007) 7 SCC 798, contending that while considering a bail application under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, the Court is not required to record a finding of innocence. The Court is only required to examine whether reasonable grounds exist for believing that the accused is not guilty and whether he is likely to commit any offence while on bail.

 

Court Order / Findings

After considering the rival submissions, the Allahabad High Court observed that while deciding an application under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, the Court is not expected to conduct a detailed appreciation of evidence or record findings equivalent to an acquittal.

The Court took into consideration:

  • the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Union of India vs. Shiv Shankar Keshari;
  • the constitutional mandate of Article 21;
  • the nature of accusations;
  • the available evidence;
  • the severity of punishment;
  • the applicant's character and antecedents;
  • the likelihood of securing his presence during trial;
  • the possibility of witness tampering; and
  • the larger public interest.

Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the prosecution case, the Court held that the matter was a fit case for grant of bail.

Accordingly, Rahul Jaiswal was directed to be released on bail upon furnishing the prescribed personal bond and sureties, subject to conditions including cooperation during trial, non-tampering of evidence, regular appearance before the Trial Court, and compliance with all directions issued by the Court.

 

Important Clarification

  • Bail under the NDPS Act does not require the Court to conclusively determine innocence at the bail stage.
  • The Court only examines whether reasonable grounds exist for granting bail under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.
  • Documentary evidence such as valid drug licences, GST invoices and purchase bills may be relevant factors while considering bail.
  • Bail may also be granted on the principle of parity where a similarly placed co-accused has already obtained bail.
  • The constitutional guarantee of personal liberty under Article 21 continues to remain an important consideration while exercising discretion in bail matters under the NDPS Act.

Sections Involved

  • Section 8, NDPS Act, 1985
  • Section 21, NDPS Act, 1985
  • Section 22, NDPS Act, 1985
  • Section 37, NDPS Act, 1985
  • Section 50, NDPS Act, 1985
  • Article 21 of the Constitution of India
  • Section 229-A IPC
  • Section 174-A IPC
  • Section 82 Cr.P.C.
  • Section 313 Cr.P.C.

 

Link to download the order -

https://www.mytaxexpert.co.in/uploads/1784616414_1611compressed.pdf


Disclaimer

This content is shared strictly for general information and knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the information from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal, professional, or advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim all liability arising from the use of this content. The material has been prepared with the assistance of AI tools.