TARIQ AHMAD DAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Menace of trade and use of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances has given rise to special piece of legislation, whereunder more stringent punishments have been prescribed. Discretionary powers exercisable vis-a-vis the connected offenders have been curtailed. Fetters have been imposed on the exercise of discretionary power as ordained by Section 37 of the NDPS Act. What emerges there from is that the matters pertaining to the commission of offences punishable under the provisions of NDPS Act are to be dealt with in the background of the social good. Interests of the society are to be safeguarded against the evil repercussion of the narcotic drugs.

(2.) Earlier Section 37 of the NDPS Act took into its sweep all offences punishable under the Act, but now pursuant to amendment operation of Section 37 of the Act has been limited in its operation only to such offences which are punishable under Section 19, Section 24, Section 27(A) and all offences involving commercial quantity of the narcotics. The fetters imposed by Section 37 of the Act are applicable only under said position of the case. If the case does not fall within the scope of Section 37, then grant or refusal of the bail has to be considered under Section 497 of the Cr. P.C.

(3.) Section 497, Cr. P.C. empowers Courts to consider grant or refusal of the bail. As per Sub-section (1) of Section 497, Cr. P.C. a person is not to be released, when reasonable ground exists for believing that he has committed the offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life, whereas in rest of the non-bailable offences restriction is not applicable. I have the benefit of going through the judgment reported in 2005 AIAR (Crl) 607 (sic) wherein it has been observed: