INTELLIGENCE OFFICER Vs. HAMEED ALI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the Intelligence Officer of the Narcotics Control Bureau, Regional Intelligence Unit, Trivandrum. He has come to this court aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Palakkad in S.C.No. 499 of 2006, wherein the accused persons face indictment for offences punishable under the N.D.P.S. Act. 7.785 grams of heroin were allegedly seized. Accused 1 and 2 are allegedly persons, who were found transporting this large quantity of contraband article. The first respondent (3rd accused) is allegedly the person, who had financed and was the master mind behind the transaction. Accused 2 and 3 have already been granted bail.

(2.) When the application for bail filed by the accused came up for consideration before the learned Sessions Judge, the learned Sessions Judge granted bail, subject to conditions. I extract the relevant portion of the order below:

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Sessions Judge has grossly failed in not adverting to the relevant circumstances while considering the application for grant of bail in a prosecution under the N.D.P.S. Act. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Judge does not appear to have been cognizant of the rigor of the provisions of Section 37 of the Act. There is no contention before me that Section 37 has no application. The impugned order does not even show whether the application was opposed by the Prosecutor. A perusal of Section 37 must reveal that the question whether the Prosecutor has opposed the application or not is a matter of crucial relevance. I am at a loss to understand how the learned Sessions Judge, without adverting to that circumstance at all, proceeded to consider the application for bail.