Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: sami ullaha in Sri Haricharan Biswas vs The State Of Tripura on 18 March, 2019Matching Fragments
23. The position stands reiterated in Sami Ullaha v. Superintendent, Narcotic Central Bureau, (2008) 16 SCC Page - 21 of 60 471 (2 Judge Bench) and Union of India v. Rattan Mallik alias Habul, (2009) 2 SCC 624 (2 Judge Bench) wherein the Apex Court further clarified that when a prosecution/conviction is for an offence under a special statute and that statute contains specific provisions for dealing with matters arising thereunder, including an application for grant of bail, such provisions cannot be ignored while dealing with such an application and observed that :
Sami Ullaha vs. Narcotic Central Bureau, (2008) 16 SCC 471; Union of India vs. Rattan Mallik alias Habul, (2009) 2 SCC 624 and most recently in Satpal Singh Vs. State of Punjab, (2018) 13 SCC 813 the Apex Court observed as under :
"3. Under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, when a person is accused of an offence punishable under Section 19 or 24 or 27A and also for offences involving commercial quantity, he shall not be released on bail unless the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the application for such release, and in case a Public Prosecutor opposes the application, the court must be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the person is not guilty of the alleged offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. Materials on record are to be seen and the antecedents of the accused is to be examined to enter such a satisfaction. These limitations are in addition to those prescribed under Cr.P.C or any other law in force on the grant of bail. In view of the seriousness of the offence, the law makers have consciously put such stringent restrictions on the discretion available to the court while considering application for release of a person on bail. It is unfortunate that the provision has not been noticed by the High Court. And it is more unfortunate that the same has not been brought to the notice of the Court."
(emphasis supplied).
52. In the aforesaid decisions, it also stands laid that the right which has inured to the accused has to be exercised and if not so done, upon filing the charge sheet, it would stand extinguished. In Mustaq Ahmed (supra) the Apex Court affirmed that there can be more than one application seeking extension of time to file charge sheet.
BAIL IF REPORT OF THE EXPERT IS IN THE NEGATIVE :
53. The Apex Court in Sami Ullaha(supra) has observed that if the report of the chemical examiner itself establishes the substance recovered not to be a psychotropic substance, the accused has a right to be enlarged on bail.