Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether, while granting default bail under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to an under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, the Court can impose a condition requiring deposit of cash security or other onerous monetary conditions, and whether the special bail restrictions under the NDPS Act exclude such entitlement.
Analysis: Default bail under Section 167(2) arises on the failure to complete investigation within the prescribed period and on the accused applying for bail and being prepared to furnish bail. The entitlement is not controlled by the merits of the accusation at that stage. The statutory scheme of the NDPS Act, particularly Sections 36-A, 36-C and 51, makes the Code applicable subject only to inconsistency, and Section 37 governs bail on merits, not default bail. The Court followed the principle that no additional condition, such as deposit of alleged amount or cash security, can be imposed so as to frustrate the indefeasible right to default bail.
Conclusion: The condition requiring deposit of Rs. 2,00,000/- was impermissible and was set aside. The petitioner remained entitled to default bail on furnishing the PR bond to the satisfaction of the Special Judge, subject to cooperation with investigation and the other directed conditions.
Ratio Decidendi: The right to default bail under Section 167(2) is a statutory and indefeasible right that cannot be diluted by imposing additional monetary conditions, and the NDPS Act does not exclude that right merely because the alleged offence is under that special statute.