The Tripura High Court recently observed that the normal rule of bail not jail in criminal cases is not applicable to cases registered under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS Act) and the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA). [The State of Tripura vs Sri Mahabul Alam]
Justice Arindam Lodh explained that under the NDPS Act, there are stringent conditions prescribed for the grant of bail, thereby making bail the exception and not the rule.
“I am in agreement with the submissions of learned Addl. PP that the Courts should not forget the rigors of NDPS and UAPA Act where it is, by now well settled that bail is not a rule, but, an exception,” Justice Lodh said.
In the same ruling, the Court also criticized the special courts dealing with NDPS cases for “irresponsibly and rampantly” granting bail to accused persons on the ground of procedural violations.
The Court noted that several judgments have settled the position that procedural violations or irregularities should not be taken into consideration while deciding on bail applications by persons accused under the NDPS Act.
“In spite of that, it is unfortunate that some of the Special Courts (NDPS) are irresponsibly and rampantly enlarging the accused on bail in total disregard to the limitations embodied in Section 37 of the NDPS Act,” the High Court said.
Given that Section 37 of the NDPS Act lays down limitations on the grant of bail, the High Court reiterated that trial courts should take into consideration the procedural violations only during trials and not at the stage of bail.
The Court made the observation while hearing the Tripura government’s plea to cancel the bail granted to three persons accused in an NDPS case.
The State’s contention was that a violation of procedure under the NDPS Act cannot be considered while granting bail. It was also alleged that the accused were habitual offenders in the trade of illicit substances.
The High Court observed that in deciding on bail, courts must strictly adhere to the two conditions in Section 37 of the NDPS Act.
However, in this case, Justice Lodh found that the trial court had “totally misdirected and misread the provisions” while releasing the accused on bail.
“Learned Special Judge did not consider at all the twin conditions as embodied in Section 37 of the NDPS Act and released the accused-respondents on bail on erroneous conception that since there was procedural violations/irregularities, the accused- respondents were entitled to get the benefit of bail,” said the High Court.
The High Court, therefore, allowed the State’s appeal.
Two of the accused who were released after the bail order were ordered to surrender before the special judge. The third accused had remained in jail in connection with another offence.
The Court also directed that this order be circulated to all the special judges exercising jurisdiction under the NDPS Act in Tripura “for necessary consideration while granting or rejecting bail applications related to NDPS cases.”
Additional Public Prosecutor S Debnath represented the State. Advocates J Bhattacharjee and Sajib Ghosh represented the accused.
