TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (7) TMI 32
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....icipatory bail to the co-accused, namely, Beant Singh and Gurwinder Singh, who are brothers of the appellant, as per order dated 21-9-2017, the Learned Judge was not inclined to accept the contention since there was no question of parity as far as the bail is concerned and in view of the fact that the Coordinate Bench had not taken note of the limitations under Section 37 of the NDPS Act. In our view, the Learned Judge is perfectly right in his approach and in declining the protection under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short "Cr.P.C.") 3. Section 37 of the NDPS Act reads as follows :- "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 27A 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....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r Singh, this Court passed the following order on 18-1-2018 :- "Seeking, among other things, parity the petitioner has sought for anticipatory bail. Noticing the anticipatory bail granted in an NDPS case to the co-accused, this Court by order dated 22-11-2017, while issuing notice passed the following order :- "Issue notice, returnable in three weeks. In the meantime, the respondent-State is directed to clarify as to whether any steps have been taken for challenging the orders granting anticipatory bail to the co-accused in the same case." It is also relevant to note that in the impugned order dated 4-10-2017 the Learned Judge has noted that the coordinate Bench which granted anticipatory bail to the co-accused has omitted to take note of Section 37 of NDPS Act, 1985. Thereafter, the matter was posted on 15-12-2017 and the Counsel sought three weeks' time to file counter affidavit, which was granted. Today, Learned Counsel for the respondent/State submits that the counter affidavit is ready and the same may be permitted to be filed during the course of the week. Permission is granted. At paragraph 6 of the counter affidavit it is stated "... no decision for challenging the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....disturbing to note that the prosecution has been lackadaisical in their approach in not taking vigilant measures. 10. The Learned Counsel appearing for the accused submits that pursuant to the order passed by the High Court, they had surrendered before the Sessions Court, and they were released on regular bail. The order dated 31-10-2017 passed by the Sessions Court has been made available for the perusal of the Court. The order reads as follows :- "Challan presented today. It be checked and registered. Copies of documents supplied to accused Gurwinder Singh and Beant Singh who have come present free of costs. They also moved application for accepting and attesting the surety bonds as per orders of the Hon'ble High Court dated 14-7-2017. The copy of the order passed by Hon'ble High Court is also enclosed herewith. The said order has been verified from the site of the Hon'ble High Court through Internet. In view of the orders passed by Hon'ble High Court, both the accused are directed to furnish the bail bonds in the sum of Rs. One Lac with one surety in the like amount each. Bonds furnished which have been accepted and attested. Amrik Singh is lodged in Central Jail, Patiala....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....away from the spot is a point which call for proof during trial. Keeping in view the above fact but without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this petition is allowed and the order dated 14-7-2017 is made absolute till the presentation of challan, subject to the following terms :- (i) that the petitioners shall make themselves available for interrogation by the police as and when required; (ii) that the petitioners shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the accusation against them so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer; (iii) that the petitioners shall not leave India without the prior permission of the Court. (iv) that the petitioners will seek regular bail on the presentation of challan in Court, which the trial Court will decide on the basis of evidence collected during investigation." 13. It is unfortunate that the Sessions Court did not take note of the final order passed by the High Court. The Court should have enquired as to whether the matter had been f....