In drug cases, court not bound to record 'finding of innocence' for bail: Punjab and Haryana High Court

Saurabh Malik

Chandigarh, April 12

In a significant judgment liable to change the way bail pleas in drug cases involving commercial quantities are adjudicated, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has made it clear that the court was not required to record a finding of innocence before granting bail to an accused.

Justice Vinod S Bhardwaj added that the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act did not prohibit the court from exercising its bail jurisdiction. One of the conditions prescribed was “reasonable grounds to the satisfaction of the court” that the accused was not guilty. It did not lay down the requirement of recording “reasons in writing to establish that an accused is innocent”.

Referring to a plethora of judgments, Justice Bhardwaj asserted: “The court is not called upon to record a finding of not guilty and it is only required to see if there are reasonable grounds of its belief. It does not mandate the court to enter into a domain as if it is pronouncing a judgment of acquittal and recording a finding of not guilty. Such an exercise, if conducted by the court, is likely to defeat the prosecution case even before a trial is concluded.”

The matter was brought to Justice Bhardwaj’s notice after an accused filed regular bail petition through counsel Vipul Jindal in a drugs case registered in May 2020. Opposing the plea, the state counsel “vehemently” argued that the application could not be considered as the quantity recovered was commercial “in view of the bar under Section 37 of the NDPS Act”.

Justice Bhardwaj asserted Section 37 prescribed twin conditions: The court’s satisfaction that there were reasonable grounds for believing that the accused was not guilty; and he was not likely to commit any offence while on bail.

Justice Bhardwaj added the statue used “three expressions” — “the court is satisfied”; “reasonable grounds”, and believing that the “accused is not guilty”. As such, the statue did not prohibit a court from exercising its jurisdiction.

“The parameters prescribe ‘reasonable grounds to the satisfaction of the court. It does not prescribe the requirement of recording reasons in writing to establish that an accused is innocent’. Hence it is the subjective satisfaction of the court based on an objective assessment of the material brought before it for giving a reasonable ground to sustain a belief,” Justice Bhardwaj added.

Allowing the plea after taking into consideration other factors as well, Justice Bhardwaj added Section 37(1)(b) was a provision empowering a court to grant bail. It was not a disabling provision to prohibit a Court of Law. “It must also be kept in mind that if the legislature intended to deny bail to an accused, it could have expressly prescribed so,” Justice Bhardwaj concluded.