TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (6) TMI 696
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ct FIR against the accused persons is that on 10.01.2024, the police had set-up a check point at the bridge on Canal Road, Village Veeram, and were conducting a check of the vehicles passing. Upon seeing the police party, a car (Mahindra XUV 300) bearing registration No. UP-15-DD-6521 attempted to flee, however the car got switched off and stopped on the katcha side of the road. Upon enquiry, the driver of the vehicle identified himself as Gurjit Singh @ Geetu and the other occupant stated his name as Sukhwinder Singh @ Gora. Since no satisfactory response was received qua the papers of the car, the police suspected presence of intoxicant material in their possession. 4. Consequently, notice was issued to them under Section 50 of the NDPS Act and the Deputy Superintendent of Police, arrived at the stop to conduct search. He prepared consent memos for the search and signature of both these persons was taken. Upon search, a total of 1. 465 Kg., of heroin was recovered from their possession. The said contraband was weighed, sealed and seized vide recovery memos. This was after compliance of the statutory provisions mandated under Section 50 of the NDPS Act. The FSL report confirmed....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mpugned order the respondent has been erroneously granted bail. We have heard Mr. Shadan Farasat, learned senior counsel and Mr. Rajat Bhardwaj, learned Additional Advocate General. The substantial grounds of challenge are as follows: (a) The bar under Section 37 of the NDPS Act has been ignored by the High Court, in violation of the ratio laid down in State of Meghalaya v. Lalrintluanga Sailo & Anr. [2024 SCC OnLine SC 1751] and Union of India v. Ajay Kumar Singh [2023 SCC OnLine SC 346]; (b) The present case involves commercial quantity, therefore, the respondent ought not to have been released on bail; and (c) Respondent has 3 antecedents of similar nature, which has been ignored by the High Court. 11. The respondent has submitted that the High Court has rightly released him on regular bail. He has no connection with the subject FIR and has been falsely implicated in the matter. Pertinently, no reference has been made to him in the FIR and no recovery was effected from him. The respondent has been incarcerated for 1 year 7 months and investigation stood completed. Only 2 out of 24 prosecution witnesses were examined, therefore the trial is not likel....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s 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." ... ... ... 7. In the decision in Collector of Customs v. Ahmadalieva Nodira [Collector of Customs v. Ahmadalieva Nodira, (2004) 3 SCC 549 : 2004 SCC (Cri) 834], the three-Judge Bench of this Court considered the provisions under Section 37(1)(b) as also Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act, with regard to the expression "reasonable grounds" used therein. This Court held that it means something more than the prima facie grounds and that it contemplates substantial and probable causes for believing that the accused is not guilty of the alleged offence. Furthermore, it was held that the reasonable belief contemplated in the provision would require existence of such facts and circumstances as are sufficient in themselves to justify satisfaction that the accused is not guilty of the alleged offence. ... ... ... 10. Thus, the provisions under Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act and the decisions referred supra revealing the consistent view of this Court that while considering the application....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssion of offences of the very same nature under the NDPS Act, therefore it cannot be said that he is not likely to commit such an offence while on bail. 19. Moreover, the respondent has only undergone 1 year 7 months, and if found guilty a maximum sentence of twenty years may be imposed upon him. Therefore, it cannot be said that he has suffered incarceration for a long period, warranting interference in view of Article 21 of the Constitution. 20. While this Court has recognized on several occasions that prolonged incarceration warrants the grant of bail in view of Article 21 of the Constitution, we have noticed that the application thereof is not uniform. Moreover, there is no doubt that what constitutes "prolonged incarceration" for the purposes of bail, has not been expounded by this Court or the law of the land. 21. While judicial discretion is an important facet of justice dispensation, this Court cannot overlook the fact that similarly situated persons in custody may receive different outcomes, dependent on the approach adopted by the respective bench. At this stage, we deem it appropriate to refer to a chart of decisions by coordinate benches of this Court, inclu....