State of Rajasthan v. Surendra Sharma (SC) BS632582
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Before:- Ranjana Prakash Desai and Madan B. Lokur, JJ.

Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl) No(s). 601 of 2013. D/d. 7.4.2014.

State of Rajasthan - Petitioner

Versus

Surendra Sharma - Respondent

For the Petitioner :- Sidharth Luthra, ASG, Meenakshi Grover, Rajat Mathur, A.K. Mishra and B. Krishna Prasad, Advocates.

For the Respondent :- Tapesh Kumar Singh and Mohd., Advocates.

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 Section 37 Bail Conviction under Section 8 read with Section 20(c) and 20(b) - Appeal before High Court - High Court granting bail without expressing any opinion on merits - Held that, it would have been better if the High Court had concentrated on Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act - However, on this ground, in the facts of this case, the bail cannot be cancelled.

[Para 6]

ORDER

Ranjana Prakash Desai, J. - Delay is condoned.

2. The respondent was charged with offences punishable under Section 8 read with Sections 20 and Section 8 read with Section 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, the `N.D.P.S. Act').

3. The trial court acquitted the respondent of the offence punishable under Section 8 read with section 29 of the NDPS Act. He was, however, convicted for offence punishable under Section 8 read with Section 20 (c) and for offence punishable Section 8 read with section 20 (b) of the NDPS Act.

4. The respondent was, inter alia, sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for fifteen years and to pay fine of L 1,50,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Fifty Thousand only)in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three years. The respondent carried an appeal to the Rajasthan High Court. The appeal has been admitted. By the impugned order, the High Court granted bail to the respondent. The High Court referred to section 37 of the NDPS Act. The High Court observed that it was suspending the sentence of the respondent without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case. The State of Rajasthan has challenged the said Order.

5. Mr. Sidharth Luthra, learned Additional Solicitor General of India assailed the impugned order and pointed out that quantity involved is huge. He submitted that while considering the bail application, the High Court should have focused its attention on Section 37 (1) (b)(ii) of the NDPS Act. Mr. Luthra stated that the High Court has not expressed any opinion that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the appellant is not guilty.

6. We find some substance in this submission. It appears, however, that the High Court was not oblivious of Section 37 as it has referred to it. It would have been better if the High court had concentrated on Section 37 (1) (b)(ii) of the NDPS Act. However, on this ground, in the facts of this case, the bail cannot be cancelled. Moreover, there is nothing to show that the respondent has indulged in any objectionable activities, after his release on bail. We deem it appropriate, therefore, not to interfere with the impugned order. We would, however, like to make it clear that the High Court's Order should not be treated as a precedent.

7. The Special Leave Petition is disposed of in the afore-stated terms.

.