HADIANI DEI Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short but important point for determination is as to whether a person who is accused of an offence under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, hereinafter "the Act", and has been released on bail during the state of investigation is required to be remanded to jail custody cognizance of the offence being taken by the Sessions Judge because of nonfulfilment of the requirements mentioned in Section 37(b)(ii) of the Act, namely, reasonable ground for believing that the person concerned is not guilty of the offence and he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.

(2.) The facts lie within a narrow compass. What had happened was that the petitioner against whom a case had been registered under the Act had been released on bail by an order passed by the Sessions Judge, Puri on 17-6-1992. That order had come to be passed during the stage of investigation on the ground that the materials available on record were not sufficient to connect the petitioner with the seized hemp plants. Subsequently, an inquiry under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was made and a prima facie case being made out, cognizance of the offence was taken by the Sessions Judge, Puri. The Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Nayagarh had directed the petitioner to appear before the Sessions Judge on 6-1-1993. On that day, the accused filed a petition to release her on bail on the ground that she was on bail granted previously. The Public Prosecutor opposed the same by stating that in view of the restrictions mentioned in Section 37( b)(ii) of the Act, the accused was not entitled to bail. The learned Sessions Judge accepted the submission and remanded the accused to jail custody.

(3.) It has been contended by Shri Nayak that the accused could not have been remanded to custody because of the restrictions mentioned above inasmuch as the present being a case of cancellation of bail, the same could have been done only on satisfaction of those conditions which have normally exist for cancellation of bail, like misuse of liberty, tampering of evidence, attempt to abscond, etc. These being not there, bail could not have been cancelled.