2006 (11) TMI 542 - SC - Customs

Supreme Court upholds bail decision under Narcotic Drugs Act emphasizing balanced legal interpretation

State of Uttaranchal Versus Rajesh Kumar Gupta

The Supreme Court dismissed the State's appeal and upheld the High Court's decision to grant bail to the respondent. It was determined that the provisions ... Whether the drugs in question not being listed in the 1st Schedule appended to Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Rules, 1985 Whether the respondent cannot be said to have committed any offence under Section 8 read with Section 22 of 1985 Act? - Held that:- Appeal dissmised. Respondent is charged with a grave offence. It was, therefore, all the more necessary to apply the principles of law strictly. A person cannot be denied the right of being released on bail unless a clear case of application of the 1985 Act is made out. He has been in custody for a period of more than two years now, in our opinion, it is not a fit case where we should exercise our discretionary jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. Issues Involved:1. Legality of the respondent's actions under the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ('1985 Act').2. Applicability of Section 37 of the 1985 Act in the context of the bail application.3. Interpretation of the exceptions under Section 8 of the 1985 Act and relevant rules.4. The High Court's decision to grant bail to the respondent.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Legality of the Respondent's Actions under the 1985 Act:The respondent, an Ayurvedacharya, was accused of using psychotropic substances in his medicines, leading to addiction among patients. The State conducted raids and recovered 70 kgs of pure phenobarbitone. The respondent was charged under Section 8 read with Section 22 of the 1985 Act and the Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act, 1954. The drugs were allegedly dispatched by post, and significant quantities were sold through his clinics over several years.2. Applicability of Section 37 of the 1985 Act in the Context of the Bail Application:The High Court granted bail to the respondent, noting that the drugs in question were not listed in the 1st Schedule of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Rules, 1985 ('the Rules'). The State contended that the High Court erred by not considering the rigours of Section 37, which imposes stringent conditions for granting bail. However, the Supreme Court noted that Section 37 should be construed pragmatically, balancing the right to bail with the seriousness of the offense.3. Interpretation of the Exceptions under Section 8 of the 1985 Act and Relevant Rules:Section 8 of the 1985 Act prohibits certain operations involving narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances, except for medical or scientific purposes as per the provisions of the Act and the Rules. The respondent argued that the seized drugs were Schedule H drugs under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, used for medicinal purposes, and not listed in Schedule I of the Rules. The Supreme Court noted that the exceptions for medical use must be judged based on whether the drugs are used for medicinal purposes and comply with the regulatory provisions in Chapters VI and VII of the Rules.4. The High Court's Decision to Grant Bail to the Respondent:The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision to grant bail, noting that the respondent had been in custody for over two years and that the provisions of the 1985 Act might not prima facie apply. The Court emphasized the need to apply the law strictly, ensuring that a person is not denied bail unless a clear case under the 1985 Act is made out. The Court referenced previous judgments, such as Dadu alias Tulsidas vs. State of Maharashtra and Ranjitsing Brahmajeetsing Sharma vs. State of Maharashtra, to support its decision.Conclusion:The appeal by the State was dismissed, affirming the High Court's decision to grant bail to the respondent. The Supreme Court concluded that the provisions of the 1985 Act and the Rules did not prima facie apply to the respondent's case, and thus, the stringent conditions of Section 37 were not applicable. The Court reiterated the importance of a balanced approach in interpreting the law, ensuring that the right to bail is not unduly negated.