CENTRAL BUREAU OF NARCOTICS Vs. DEVISINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH the aforesaid Criminal Revisions are being disposed of by this common order.

(2.) THE Department has filed two criminal revisions, one against grant of anticipatory bail to the respondent-Devisingh vide order dated 9-9-2003 by the learned Special Judge (under NDPS Act), Ratlam and another against grant of regular bail on 23-9-2003 by the same Court.

(3.) THE submission of the learned Counsel for the applicant is that the learned Special Judge has not considered the special provisions of bail as enshrined in Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for brevity 'the Act' ). According to the learned Counsel while granting anticipatory bail, the learned Court below having held that the respondent was the licensee and it appears that he had cultivated on the excess area of the land than the area allowed to him to cultivate in the licence, erred in granting bail. By this observation, the learned Trial Court found the prima facie case against the respondent. Learned Counsel further submitted that the learned Trial Court has not given any finding that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. After granting anticipatory bail, the respondent applied for regular bail and the same was granted by the order dated 23-9-2003. The learned Counsel, in support of his contention relied upon the recent judgments delivered by the Apex Court in the case of Customs New Delhi v. Ahmadalieva Nodira [jt 2004 (3) SC 264] and Murleedharan v. State of Kerala [2001 SCC (Cri) 795].