N.C.B. TRIVANDRUM Vs. JALALUDDIN A.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties. Leave granted.

(2.) The respondent herein was prosecuted on 8th May,2002 for being in possession of 790 grams of heroin is a commercial quantity under the amended provisions of the NDPS Act. His application for grant of bail made to the Sessions Court was rejected. He preferred bail application before the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam which came up before the court for admission on 12th August,2002. On the very same day the High Court passed the impugned order by observing as follows:

(3.) It is submitted before us that the impugned order of the High Court is unsustainable in law because the mandatory requirements of Section 37 of the NDPS Act have not been followed by the court. Section 37 imposes certain restrictions while granting bail in the matters arising under this Act. One of the conditions herein is that before granting such bail Public Prosecutor has to be given an opportunity to oppose the application for such release. In the instant case we notice that the matter came up for admission on 12th August,2002 and there is nothing on record to show that the Public Prosecutor was given the time to file objections. What is recorded is that he opposed the grant of bail. Be that as it may another mandatory requirement of Section 37 of the Act is that where Public Prosecutor opposes the bail application, the court should be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of such offence and he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. In the impugned order we do not find any such satisfaction recorded by the High Court while granting bail nor there is any material available to show that the High Court applied its mind to these mandatory requirements of the Act.