Allow Cookies!
By using our website, you agree to the use of cookies
Anticipatory bail cannot be granted merely because nothing was recovered from the accused: HC
In a case of State of Kerala v Mohammed Riyas, the petition was filed by the accused of granting anticipatory bail, in which he was charged under Section 22(c), 28 and 29 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, in which Session Court held that as nothing was recovered from the accused and no prima facie evidence are available against his active participation in the crime, therefore it proceeded to grant the bail.
Later, the respondent (State) filed a petition to the High Court challenging the order given by Sessions Court. Here, under Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the Act, it needs to satisfy two conditions for granting the bail to the accused – i) The Court shall be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the accused is not guilty of the offense alleged against him.
The Court has the power to enlarge the accused on bail, only if these two conditions are satisfied.
The Judge said that these two conditions are mandatory to fulfill and not an alternative. Both of these conditions should be satisfied to grant the bail of an accused. The two conditions should be satisfactory to the court, which is only for a limited purpose and is restricted to the question of releasing the accused on bail.
The Court has observed that, the Sessions Court has not adverted to the two conditions mentioned under section 37(1)(b) of the Act and that it has not recorded any satisfaction with regard to those conditions. It can also be seen from the disputed order that Court was not satisfied with regards to those two conditions
Hence, The Kerala High Court has held that anticipatory bail cannot be granted in an NDPS case only because 'nothing was recovered' from the accused.
86540
103860
630
114
59824