RAJENDRA PANDA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The ambience of S. 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (in short the 'Act') is the subject-matter of adjudication in these applications for bail. Point involved being of singular importance, learned counsel for the parties have made copious reference to various provisions of the Act, and have raised several interesting and important points for consideration.

(2.) Controversy revolves round the question whether the mandate contained in S. 37 to the effect that where a person is accused of an offence punishable for a term of imprisonment of five years or more under the Act, he shall not be released on bail or on his own bond, unless court is 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, is applicable to the cases covered u/ S. 20(b)(i) of the Act. According to learned counsel for petitioners, restrictions imposed by S. 37 (b)(ii) do not apply to the cases covered u/ S. 20(b)(i). It is submitted that S. 37(b)(ii) is intended to be applied in cases of sentence where minimum sentence is five years, and not to cases like S. 20(b)(i) where maximum sentence is five years. According to learned counsel for State, since any contravention u/ S. 20(b)(i) also attracts a punishment of five years, provisions of S. 37(b)(ii) also apply.

(3.) For resolution of dispute, it would be necessary to quote the relevant portions of S. 20(b)(i) and 37(b)(ii). Section 20(b)(i).