RAJNI DEVI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application has been filed by the petitioner seeking interim bail on the ground of the marriage of the petitioner's son which is to take place on 17.02.2005 and the engagement ceremony is to take place on 26.01.2005. Earlier interim bail had been granted to the petitioner on four occasions. Twice by this court and twice by the Additional Sessions Judge by orders dated 07.03.2000, 12.07.2002, 16.01.2004 and 04.03.2004. The first two orders were passed by this court and the latter two by the Additional Sessions Judge. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that whenever interim bail was granted to the petitioner, the same was not misused and this fact has been recorded in the orders dated 12.07.2002, 16.01.2004 and 04.03.2004. Earlier, the interim bails were granted on the ground of looking after the minor children of the petitioner. On the last date i.e., on 17.01.2005, the respondent was directed to ascertain the age of the petitioner's son who is to be married. This court is informed that the date of birth of the son is 29.10.1983 which shows that in the year 2000, when the first order was passed, the petitioner was below 18 years of age and, therefore, this does not contradict the statement of the petitioner.

(2.) The learned counsel for the respondent opposes the ground of interim bail stating that this is a case under Sections 21 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act). He submitted that this was a case in which Sec. 37 of the Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act would come into play. Mr Sharma, who appears for the State, contended that in such a situation, what to speak of regular bail, even interim bail should not be granted. In support of his contention, he cited two decisions, one of this court and one of the Supreme Court. I shall first consider the decision of this court in the case of Islamuddin @ Chottey Vs. State of Delhi :1999(51) DRJ 558 . This was a case in which the petitioner therein was seeking interim bail on the ground that the petitioner's wife was suffering from acute appendix IT is and that she had to undergo surgery in connection with the said condition. While considering the interim bail application, this court had examined the provisions of Sec. 37 of the Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act. This court observed as under:

(3.) In so far as the last sentence as quoted above is concerned, it may be said that the court has no power to grant bail "merely" on the ground of illness or hospitalisation of the spouse or on any other similar ground unless and until the conditions specified in Sec. 37, which is a mandatory provision, are complied with. The only conditions that have to be complied mandatorily are that (1) notice must be given to the public prosecutor; (2) where the public prosecutor, after such notice, opposes the application, the court must be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the applicant is not guilty of such offence and ; (3) that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. These limitations, in term of Sec. 37 of the Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act, are clearly in addition to the other limitations prescribed under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 on the grant of bail. In the case which was cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner in paragraph 3 thereof, it is noted that the petitioner was involved in 21 other cases. In four of them he was convicted and in seven of them he was acquitted and the remaining cases were pending. It was also noted at page 560 of the said report that "as already observed this court has already rejected the petitioner's application for regular bail holding that this court is not satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of the alleged offences and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail."