Ramesh Das vs State Of Orissa on 8 September, 1999
Needless to say, a person accused of an offence under the NDPS Act is entitled to compulsive bail if the report/charge-sheet is not filed within the prescribed period. Section 37 of the said Act comes into play where bail is sought on merit. So before consideration of such prayer it is imperative that the Court should give opportunity to the Public Prosecutor to oppose it as provided in Section 37(1)(b)(i). Similarly two separate provisions are there, one for compulsive bail and Anr. for regular bail in TADA. Section 20(4) relates to compulsive bail. So far as Section 20(8) is concerned it starts with a non-obstante clause and imposes a ban on release of a person accused of an offence punishable under the said Act or any rule made thereunder, unless the twin conditions contained in Clauses (a) and (b) thereof are satisfied. It may be noted that in Hitendra Vishnu Thakur, their Lordships on a conspectus of Sections 20(4) and 20(8) of TADA held that these two provisions operate in two different situations and are controlled and guided by different considerations. This being the authoritative pronouncements and in view of law laid down by this Court in Ada alias Adeita Behera (supra), the decision in Sudhakar Das (supra) does not hold good.