LAWS(ORI)-2002-2-44

RUPADHAR PATEL Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

Decided On February 28, 2002
RUPADHAR PATEL Appellant
V/S
STATE OF ORISSA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application under Section 439. Cr. P.C. has been filed for grant of bail to the petitioner who has been taken into custody for allegedly committing an offence under Section 20(a) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act. 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Prayer of the petitioner having been rejected by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Jharsuguda, he has approached this Court for bail.

(2.) SRI Dhal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that Section 37 of the Act as amended does not stand as a bar for considering the application of the petitioner for bail. In support of such contention, Sri Dhal referring to Section 20(a) of the Act submitted that punishment prescribe for the offence is for a maximum period of ten years with fine which may extend to one lakh rupees. Referring to Section 37(b) of the Act, he submitted that the provision prescribed bar in respect of certain offences and those are offences under Section 19 or 24 or 27 -A of the Act and the sentence for the aforesaid offence or offence relating to commercial quantity are more than ten years and the legislature intended that wherever punishment prescribed is less than ten years or for a maximum period of ten years, bar under Section 37(b) should not operate. Sri Pradhan, learned Addl. Standing Counsel on the other hand, submitted that there being no amendment to Section 20(a) of the Act defining small or commercial quantity, Section 37(b) of the Act shall operate as a bar and no offender shall be granted bail unless the Court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any such offence while on bail.

(3.) FROM the aforesaid facts, it appears that the legislature intended that wherever punishment prescribed is for maximum period of ten years, Section 37(b) as amended will not operate as bar. I therefore, hold that for the offence alleged to be committed under Section 20(a) of the Act, Section 37(b) shall not operate as a bar and the Court can grant bail depending on facts of each case without adhering to the provision contained in Section 37(b)(ii) of the Act.