Union of India through Central Bureau of Narcotics Commissioner, Lucknow Vs. Aharwa Deen
EmailAppeal: Criminal Appeal No. 105 of 2000
( Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 3579/99 )
( Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 3579/99 )
Petitioner: Union of India through Central Bureau of Narcotics Commissioner, Lucknow
Respondent: Aharwa Deen
Apeal: Criminal Appeal No. 105 of 2000
( Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 3579/99 )
( Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 3579/99 )
Judges: G.B. PATTANAIK & U.C. BANERJEE, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Jan 31, 2000
Head Note:
CRIMINAL LAW
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973
Sections 437, 439 with NDPS Act, Sections 37,8,18 – Bail – Of-fence under Section 8/18 of NDPS Act – High Court granting bail – No focus on requirements under Section 37. Held that High Court was totally in error in granting bail. Appeal allowed. High Court orders set-aside.(Para 3)
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2. The Union of India is in appeal against the order of the learned single Judge of the Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow, granting bail to the respondent in case under Section 8/18 NDPS Act. Pursuant to the notice issued, the respondent has entered appearance. A letter was circulated praying for adjourn-ment to file a counter affidavit. But we see no justification for a counter affidavit being filed in a case in hand. Since on the face of the impugned order of the High Court granting bail cannot be sustained as the High Court has not looked into the provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act.
3. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on exam-ining the record of this case we have no hesitation to come to the conclusion that the High Court was totally in error in grant-ing bail without even focussing its attention to the mandatory provision of Section 37 of the NDPS Act. In that view of the matter, we allow the appeal, set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court.
1. Leave granted.
2. The Union of India is in appeal against the order of the learned single Judge of the Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow, granting bail to the respondent in case under Section 8/18 NDPS Act. Pursuant to the notice issued, the respondent has entered appearance. A letter was circulated praying for adjourn-ment to file a counter affidavit. But we see no justification for a counter affidavit being filed in a case in hand. Since on the face of the impugned order of the High Court granting bail cannot be sustained as the High Court has not looked into the provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act.
3. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on exam-ining the record of this case we have no hesitation to come to the conclusion that the High Court was totally in error in grant-ing bail without even focussing its attention to the mandatory provision of Section 37 of the NDPS Act. In that view of the matter, we allow the appeal, set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court.
