A.J. Shaikh Vs. Ilyas Mohd. Usman Shaikh & Anr.
EmailAppeal: Criminal Appeal No. 736 of 2000
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) 552 of 1999)
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) 552 of 1999)
Petitioner: A.J. Shaikh
Respondent: Ilyas Mohd. Usman Shaikh & Anr.
Apeal: Criminal Appeal No. 736 of 2000
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) 552 of 1999)
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) 552 of 1999)
Judges: K.T. THOMAS & R.P. SETHI, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Aug 31, 2000
Head Note:
CRIMINAL LAW
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985
Section 37 – Bail for offences under the Narcotic Drugs Act – Principles laid down in Union of India v. Samujh and Anr. (JT 1999 (6) SC 397) to be followed – Bail granted by High Court cancelled by Supreme Court earlier by interim order and accused ordered to be put back in jail – When the matter came up before the Court, trial of accused having been completed, only judgment by trial court was to be pronounced . Held that in such circumstances, the interim order of the court, cancelling the bail, set aside.(Para 2)
Cases Reffered:
1. Union of India v. Ram Samujh and Another (JT 1999 (6) SC 397)
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2. By an interim order we suspended the impugned order passed by the High Court and directed the respondent to be put back in jail. Pursuant to the order, he was put back in jail and he is continuing there. Now, when this matter came up for arguments today we are told that the trial court has almost completed the trial and heard arguments of the Counsel for the respondents also and what remains is only to hear the arguments of the special Public Prosecutor for which a posting is given today by the trial court. This means after today all that may remain is pronounce-ment of the judgment. In this situation it is unnecessary for us to consider the legal points raised by the appellant, particularly because this Court has considered and decided on the principles to be followed while granting bail under Section 37 of the Narco-tic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 in Union of India v. Ram Samujh and Another (JT 1999 (6) SC 397 = 1999 (9) SCC 429).
3. Subject to the above observations, we set aside the impugned order. This cannot be treated in any way as our pronouncement on the merits of the points involved in the trial.
4. Appeal is disposed of accordingly.
1. Leave granted.
2. By an interim order we suspended the impugned order passed by the High Court and directed the respondent to be put back in jail. Pursuant to the order, he was put back in jail and he is continuing there. Now, when this matter came up for arguments today we are told that the trial court has almost completed the trial and heard arguments of the Counsel for the respondents also and what remains is only to hear the arguments of the special Public Prosecutor for which a posting is given today by the trial court. This means after today all that may remain is pronounce-ment of the judgment. In this situation it is unnecessary for us to consider the legal points raised by the appellant, particularly because this Court has considered and decided on the principles to be followed while granting bail under Section 37 of the Narco-tic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 in Union of India v. Ram Samujh and Another (JT 1999 (6) SC 397 = 1999 (9) SCC 429).
3. Subject to the above observations, we set aside the impugned order. This cannot be treated in any way as our pronouncement on the merits of the points involved in the trial.
4. Appeal is disposed of accordingly.
