TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (7) TMI 1068
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... so, on what grounds and under which provision? 2. To what result? POINT Nos.1& 2: 4. Before coming to the facts on the scope of the application, the only contention for cancellation of bail is that the learned Judge did not properly advert to the scope of Section 37 of NDPS Act, which prohibits the grant of bail. Thereby it is required to reproduce what the Section 37 speaks herein: "[37. Offences to be cognizable and non-bailable.-(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) (a) every offence punishable under this Act shall be cognizable; (b) no person accused of an offence punishable for offences under section 19 or section 24 or section 27 A and also for offences involving commercial quantity shall be released on bail or on his own bond unless (i) the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the application for such release, and (ii) where the Public Prosecutor opposes the application,the court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. (2) The limitations on granting of b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....- section (1) of Section 37 of the NDPS Act. Apart from giving an opportunity to the Public Prosecutor to oppose the application for such release, the other twin conditions viz; (i) the satisfaction of the Court that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of the alleged offence; and (ii) that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail, have to be satisfied. It is manifest that the conditions are cumulative and not alternative. The satisfaction contemplated regarding the accused being not guilty, has to be based on "reasonable grounds". The expression `reasonable grounds' has not been defined in the said Act but means something more than prima facie grounds. It connotes substantial probable causes for believing that the accused is not guilty of the offence he is charged with . The reasonable belief contemplated in turn points to existence of such facts and circumstances as are sufficient in themselves to justify satisfaction that the accused is not guilty of the alleged offence. [Vide Union of India Vs. Shiv ShankerKesari2] Thus, recording of satisfaction on both the aspects, noted above, is sine qua non for granting of bail under the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ustained......" 8. The expression clearly indicates, that there must be some thing more than prima facie grounds, within the meaning of reasonable grounds as a substantial probable cause for believing that accused is not guilty of such offence, and another requirement of satisfaction of the Court is that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail; and in the absence of showing the material the accused is not entitled to the concession of bail by virtue of rider under Section 37 of the Act; irrespective of the Qualified (not absolute) fundamental right of personal liberty as part of the fundamental rights of the individualenshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India; by virtue of the legal bar to say a person who waived the constitutional privilege of liberty by involved in the grave crime, in the larger interest of society cannot be given concession of individual liberty. There is nothing more to answer, but in the limited purpose of the contention raised as not a writ petition questioning the constitutional validity of the Section, 37 of the Act; leave about similar bar by another provision of this chapter in Section 32-A against suspension of sentence and ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cellation sought is for recalling of the order passed by the Court based on the cardinal principle governed by the Latin maxim "Actus Curiae Neminem Gravabit", i.e. "An act of the Court not sanctioned by law shall prejudice no one". It is needless to say for such recall, the inherent power of the Court which inheres in every Court from its very constitution, subject to the saving and unless denied by way of statutory interdiction with all breadth and length is to the necessity, to apply to meet the ends of justice, including to undo a wrong or irregular thing as no Court can perpetrate an illegality or even an irregularity generally, when necessary facts brought to its notice. It is so to exercise apart from the inherent powers that are preserved by Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 to all the Civil Courts; equally to the High Courts by Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to sub-serve the ends of justice, to render complete justice or to prevent abuse of injustice vide Jaipur MDS v. Commissioner of Income Tax - AIR 1977 SC 1348 and Surya Kaksh Singh v. State of U.P. -Crl.A.No.1680 of 2013 of the Apex Court to recall an order passed when not correct. It is practically the petition that h....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ding is to police officer. Here the intelligence officers of the Narcotic Control Bureau, whether come within the purview of the Police Officer, for any statement made by accused is (by self-incrimination, from Article 20 of the Constitution of India, protects the testimonial compulsion; needless to say if it is voluntary by waiver of the constitutional privilege is saved from the rider of Article 20 a bar under Section 25 of the Evidence Act or not:- In this regard, the ApexCourt in Kanhaiyalal v. Union of India AIR 2008 SC 1044, held that confession of offence other than to a police officer, of an officer governed by the provision of Narcotics Act is not hit by Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act. It is to say if it is voluntarily, it is as good as a confession under Section 24 of the Evidence Act. Needless to say in this juncture, the other provisions covered by Section 28 of Evidence Act as to confession made after removal of impression caused by inducement, threat or promise being relevant and admissible; also as per Section 29 confession otherwise relevant, not to become irrelevant because of promise of secrecy, or in consequence of a deception practised on the accused pers....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of such force or threat or influence, these facts could not be the out come from his mouth. 16. From this background, it is just to refer back to the application for bail sought by the respondent (A.5) herein. His bail application running with 9 paras in 5 pages taking all sorts of defence including conducting the seizure panchanama of the contraband, undisputedly he is a signatory to every page. No doubt there is lot of gap to the signatures and the ending to each page writing for his saying as theoutcome of signature of him in the blank unfilled page and the later filling the contents and the other contention of him that the so called voluntary confession or disclosure obtained by him under threat or force. From what is discussed above on the scope of Sections 24, 28 & 29 of the Evidence Act, such confession for even admittedly not retracted till date if not immediately to say if not voluntarily made, for the purpose of bail application to consider as voluntary. The other contention is that even the panchanama of seizure discloses service of notice under Section 50 of the NDPS Act, not complied with. Admittedly no search of person conducted and it is required only when there ....