E-Paper
Reasonable grounds for bail in drug cases are subjective: Punjab and Haryana HC
In an important judgment, the Punjab and Haryana high court has said that the courts have to grant or deny bail to an accused in drugs seizure cases on the basis of its “subjective satisfaction” based on an “objective assessment” of the material brought before it by the prosecution.
In an important judgment, the Punjab and Haryana high court has said that the courts have to grant or deny bail to an accused in drugs seizure cases on the basis of its “subjective satisfaction” based on an “objective assessment” of the material brought before it by the prosecution.
The SC, while dealing with Section 37 of the NDPS Act, had held that before granting bail, the court has to have “reasonable grounds” for believing that the accused is “not guilty” of the offence that he has been charged with and that he is unlikely to commit an offence under NDPS Act while on bail again. The second condition is granting the opportunity to the public prosecutor to oppose the bail.
The high court bench of justice Sandeep Moudgil observed that to record a ‘finding of innocence’ for bail, the court is not called upon to “record a finding of not guilty and it is only required to see if there are reasonable grounds of its belief”. “It does not mandate the court to enter into a domain as if it is pronouncing a judgment of acquittal and recording a finding of not guilty. Such an exercise, if conducted by the court, is likely to defeat the prosecution case even before a trial is concluded,” the bench recorded.
It further said that the court is also not expected to weigh the evidence for arriving at a finding as to whether the accused has committed an offence or not. “The entire exercise that the court is expected to undertake at this stage is to the limited purpose of releasing him on bail (or deny the same),” it said.
“The law used “three expressions” “the court is satisfied”; “reasonable grounds”, and “believing that the accused is not guilty”, and as such, it does not restrain the court from exercising its jurisdiction,” it said adding that the requirement of recording reasons would not mean to record in writing establishing that an accused is innocent or guilty.
The bench further recorded that the “reasonable grounds” as envisaged in law would mean credible, plausible grounds for the court to believe that the accused person is not guilty (or not) of the alleged offence.
The judgment came in a case in which anticipatory bail was sought by one Dharminder Singh, in a March 2015 FIR involving the recovery of 17kg of heroin in an open area in Amritsar. The name of the accused was roped in on the basis of extra-judicial confession. The bail was denied in the case in hand as the court opined that he was involved in some other FIR as well and the court found the conduct of the petitioner “suspicious” in the case in hand.
The bench also observed that the drug peddlers have “successfully destroyed” not only the social fabric of the society but finishing the youth, who are the future generation of the country. “Such accused need to be dealt with firmly and sternly with no sympathy to be shown to them particularly in the case in hand, wherein the petitioner is involved in smuggling of dangerous contraband at the international borders,” it added.
