| |
CDJ 2026 SC 336
|
| Court : Supreme Court of India |
| Case No : Criminal Appeal No. 192 of 2026 [Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 15087 of 2025] |
| Judges: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DIPANKAR DATTA & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA |
| Parties : Gurudat Patel @ Sonu Kumar Versus The Intelligence Officer N.C.B. Patna & Another\r\n |
| Appearing Advocates : For the Petitioner: ------ For the Respondents: ----- |
| Date of Judgment : 12-01-2026 |
| Head Note :- |
Subject
|
| Summary :- |
1. Statutes / Acts / Rules Mentioned:
- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance (N.D.P.S.) Act, 1985
- Sections 8(c), 20(b)(ii)(c), 25, 29 of the N.D.P.S. Act, 1985
2. Catch Words:
- Bail
- Appeal
3. Summary:
The High Court of Patna had denied bail to the appellant, who was charged under several provisions of the N.D.P.S. Act, 1985. The appellant, having no prior criminal record, argued that the evidence against him was weak and the trial was nearing completion. The appellate court found prima facie doubt regarding his complicity and considered further detention unnecessary. Consequently, it set aside the lower court’s order, granting bail subject to conditions and bonds. The court emphasized that the bail order does not constitute a finding on the merits. The appellant was directed to attend trial proceedings diligently. The appeal was allowed.
4. Conclusion:
Appeal Allowed |
| Judgment :- |
|
1. Leave granted.
2. The High Court of Judicature at Patna, by the impugned judgment and order dated 11th July, 2025, has rejected the appellant's prayer for bail.
3. Appellant, figuring as an accused in N.C.B. P.S. Case No.15 of 2023 dated 11th December, 2023 under Sections 8(c), 20(b)(ii)(c), 25, 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance (N.D.P.S.) Act, 1985, was arrested on 06th December, 2024.
4. Mr. K.M. Nataraj, learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the respondent submits that the trial is on the verge of completion. Evidence of five out of six witnesses, whom the prosecution proposes to examine, have been recorded.
5. Prima facie, complicity of the appellant in the alleged crime is doubtful.
6. That apart, the appellant has no criminal antecedents.
7. In view thereof, we are of the considered opinion that further detention of the appellant pending trial is not necessary; and, since the appeal deserves acceptance, the appellant may be admitted to an order for grant of bail.
8. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned judgment and order.
9. Appellant shall be released on bail, subject to furnishing of bail bonds to the satisfaction of the trial court and subject to such other terms and conditions as may be imposed by it.
10. Needless to observe, the appellant shall not, directly or indirectly, by making inducement, threat or promise, dissuade any person acquainted with the facts of the case from disclosing such facts to the court.
11. In the event there is any breach of the terms and conditions for grant of bail, the trial court shall be at liberty to cancel the bail of the appellant.
12. It is also ordered that the appellant shall diligently attend proceedings of the trial, unless exempted. If he abstains from attending the proceedings without justifiable cause, that could also be seen as breach of the conditions for grant of bail and the trial court will be free to pass appropriate orders.
13. We clarify that the observations made in this order and grant of bail will not be treated as findings on the merits of the case.
14. The appeal is, accordingly, allowed on the aforesaid terms.
15. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
|
| |
