Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Union Of India vs Md. Jamal on 6 May, 2022
Bench: D.Y. Chandrachud, Surya Kant
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Criminal Appeal No 752 of 2022
(Arising out of SLP(Crl) No 1596 of 2022)
Union of India .... Appellant(s)
Versus
Md Jamal ....Respondent(s)
ORDER
1 Leave granted.
2 The appeal arises from a judgment of a Single Judge of the High Court of
Jharkhand dated 24 June 2021 in Bail Application No 7756 of 2020. By the impugned order, the Single Judge has allowed the application for bail. The reasons which weighed with the High Court are extracted below:
“So far as the allegations in the present case is concerned, it appears that NCB officials had intercepted a Maruti Alto 800 car and five persons including the petitioner were apprehended. From the dickey of the car 2.75 kg of opium was recovered. The petitioner does not have any criminal antecedent and it appears that he is in custody since 25.06.2020.” 3 Acting on the basis of specific information, a team of officials of the Narcotics Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by Sanjay Kumar Control Bureau1 of Sub Zone Ranchi left the NCB office at about 2340 hours on Date: 2022.05.09 17:49:32 IST Reason: 24 June 2020. A vehicle was intercepted at about 1000 hours on 25 June 2020. Five persons were in the vehicle, including the respondent. A search of the 1 “NCB” 2 vehicle resulted in the recovery of 2.75 kgs of liquid opium. A complaint case being NCB Crime No 04/NCB/Ranchi/2020 was filed before the court of the Principal District and Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, NDPS, Hazaribagh. The bail application was allowed by the High Court by its impugned order dated 24 June 2021.
4 Mr Sanjay Jain, learned Additional Solicitor General submits that the High Court has neither noticed nor applied the provisions of section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act 19852. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent states that there was substantial compliance by the High Court of the provisions of Section 37 since it has observed that the respondent has no criminal antecedents.
5 Ex facie, the impugned order of the High Court does not consider the provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act. The provisions of Section 37 have been interpreted by this Court in Union of India v Rattan Malik alias Habul3 and Union of India v Md Nawaz Khan4. Noticing that a quantity of 2.75 kgs of opium was allegedly recovered from the vehicle in which the respondent was one of the occupants, the High Court has granted bail on the ground that:
(i) The respondent does not have any criminal antecedents; and
(ii) It appears that he was in custody since 25 June 2020.
6 The High Court having failed to apply its mind to the provisions of Section 37, we allow the appeal and set aside the impugned judgment and order of the High 2 “NDPS Act” 3 (2009) 2 SCC 624 4 (2021) 10 SCC 100 3 Court dated 24 June 2021 in Bail Application No 7756 of 2020. The respondent shall, within a period of two weeks, surrender. He shall, however, be at liberty to pursue his application for bail before the High Court which shall be considered on its own merits, having due regard to the provisions of Section 37. 7 Pending application, if any, stands disposed of.
…..…..…....…........……………….…........J. [Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud] …..…..…....…........……………….…........J. [Surya Kant] New Delhi;
May 06, 2022
-S-
4
ITEM NO.26 COURT NO.4 SECTION II-A
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s).1596/2022
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 24-06-2021 in BA No. 7756/2020 passed by the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi) UNION OF INDIA Petitioner(s) VERSUS MD. JAMAL Respondent(s) (WITH IA No. 25102/2022 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.) Date : 06-05-2022 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM :
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE D.Y. CHANDRACHUD HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT For Petitioner(s) Mr. Sanjay Jain, ASG Mr. R. Balasubramanian, Sr. Adv.
Ms. Neela Kedar Gokhale, Adv.
Mr. Mohit Kumar Singh, Adv.
Mr. Sourav Singh, Adv.
Ms. Praveena Gautam, Adv.
Mr. Rupesh Kumar, Adv.
Ms. Neela Kedal Gokhale, Adv.
Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, AOR For Respondent(s) Mr. Ranjeet Kumar, Adv.
Mr. Anant Kumar, Adv.
Mr. Mithilesh Kumar, Adv.
Mr. Amar Jyoti Sharma, Adv.
Mr. P. S. Nerwal, Adv.
Mr. Satish Pandey, AOR UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R 1 Leave granted.5
2 The appeal is allowed in terms of the signed order. 3 Pending application, if any, stands disposed of.
(SANJAY KUMAR-I) (SAROJ KUMARI GAUR) AR-CUM-PS COURT MASTER (Signed order is placed on the file)