Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Union Of India vs Ishdan Seikh Alias Ishdan Sk on 17 August, 2016
Bench: S.A. Bobde, Ashok Bhushan
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 774 OF 2016
(Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No. 465 of 2016)
UNION OF INDIA .. APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
ISHDAN SEIKH ALIAS ISHDAN SK .. RESPONDENT(S)
O R D E R
1. Heard Shri Atmaram Nadkarni, learned Additional Solicitor General.
2. None appears for the respondent, though served.
3. Leave granted.
4. The only ground on which the High Court has released the respondent on bail is that Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by CHARANJEET KAUR “nothing was recovered from the respondent”. Date: 2016.08.23 17:12:21 IST Reason: Having regard to the provisions of Section 37 of 2 the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (For short, “the NDPS Act”) we find that the reasons which are required to be given by the High Court are that “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” (vide Section 37(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act).
5. Shri Nadkarni, learned Additional Solicitor General refers to the recovery memo from which it appears that the recovery was made from the other person who was along with the respondent. According to the learned counsel the recovery was made from the respondent. We are not inclined to go into the question of recovery. However, we are of the view that any reason which weighs with the Court must lead to a satisfaction that there are reasonable grounds of believing that the person is not guilty of 3 such an offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. Accordingly, the Court is bound to correlate any reason to the belief that such a person is not guilty of such an offence. This requirement is not satisfied by the impugned order.
6. Learned Additional Solicitor General relied upon the decisions of this Court in the case of Union of India vs. Ram Samujh & Anr., (1999) 9 SCC 429 and in the case of Supdt. Narcotics Control Bureau vs. R. Paul Samy, (2000) 9 SCC 549. These decisions need to be considered by the High Court.
7. In the circumstances of the case, we set aside the impugned order and remit the matter back to the High Court for a fresh decision after due notice to the respondent.
8. The amount of Rs. 25,000/- deposited in this Court vide order dated 20.11.2015 shall be 4 transferred to the account of Supreme Court Legal Services Committee.
9. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
.....................J. [ S.A. BOBDE ] ......................J. [ ASHOK BHUSHAN ] NEW DELHI, AUGUST 17, 2016.
ITEM NO.55 COURT NO.11 SECTION IIB
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 465/2016 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 11/09/2014 in CRM No. 10507/2014 passed by the High Court Of Calcutta) UNION OF INDIA Petitioner(s) VERSUS ISHDAN SEIKH ALIAS ISHDAN SK Respondent(s) (With appln. for c/delay in filing SLP and office report) Date :17/08/2016 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.A. BOBDE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK BHUSHAN For Petitioner(s) Mr. Atmaram Nadkarni, ASG Mr. Rajesh Singh Chauhan, Adv. Ms. Binu Tamta, Adv.
Mr. Rajiv Singh, adv.
Mr. Salvada Rebello, Adv. Mr. Manish Vashishtha,AOR For Respondent(s) UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R None appears for the respondent, though served.
Delay condoned.
Leave granted.
The appeal is disposed of in terms of the signed order.
The amount of Rs. 25,000/- deposited in this Court vide order dated 20.11.2015 shall be transferred to the account of Supreme Court Legal Services Committee.
[ Charanjeet Kaur ] [ Indu Pokhriyal ]
A.R.-cum-P.S. Court Master
[ Signed order is placed on the file ]