Cril. Bail Appln. No. 23 of 1994 in Crl. Appeal No. 361 of 1993. Case: Fakira Ramdas Chaudhary Vs State of Maharashtra. High Court of Bombay (India)
| Case Number | Cril. Bail Appln. No. 23 of 1994 in Crl. Appeal No. 361 of 1993 |
| Counsel | For Petitioner: S. V. Kotwal, Advs. and For Respondents: R. F. Lambay, A.P.P., Advs. |
| Judges | A. C. Agarwal, J. and I. G. Shah , J. |
| Issue | Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (61 of 1985) - Section 37; Criminal Procedure Code (2 of 1974) - Section 390 |
| Citation | 1994 CriLJ 1805 |
| Judgement Date | January 13, 1994 |
| Court | High Court of Bombay (India) |
Judgment:
Ashok Agarwal, J.
-
This is an application for bail pending the hearing and final disposal of an appeal filed by the State seeking to impugn an order of acquittal passed for offences punishable under Ss. 21 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. At the trial five accused were prosecuted and by judgment and order passed on the 8th of April, 1993 the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Malegaon acquitted all the accused. Benig aggrieved by the aforesaid order of acquittal, the State has preferred the instant appeal. By an order passed on the 4th of October, 1993 the aforesaid appeal was admitted and action under S. 390 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was ordered. Accordingly, warrants of arrest of the accused were issued and accused No. 5 was taken in custody by the trial Court. The accused No. 5, thereafter, preferred an application for bail. By an order passed on the 17th of December, 1993 the learned Additional Sessions Judge was pleased to reject the application for bail. According to the learned Judge, only accused No. 5 has been arrested after the issue of warrants whereas the other accused are reported absconding. He has further noted that during the pendency of the trial all the accused including accused No. 5 were under-trial prisoners and they were denied bail under the provision of S. 37 of the Act. After the order of acquittal was passed, the State has preferred an appeal. The High Court has admitted the appeal which necessarily means that, according to the High Court, ex-facie, the acquittal is improper. The Court has further proceeded to hold that the provisions of S.390 Criminal Procedure Code do not apply to offences punishable under the Act. S.17 is a special provision in the Act which governs the bail and hence the general provisions of S. 390, Criminal Procedure Code cannot be resorted to. The accused No. 5 has, thereafter preferred the present application for bail.
-
Shri Kotwal, the learned Advocate, who has appeared in support of the application for bail, has contended that the provisions of S. 390 of the Code would apply in the instant case and S. 37 of the Act will not oust the application of S.390 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In support of his contention, he has relied on a decision of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of "Kuldeepsingh Keshersingh Pabla v. State of Maharashtra", (1993 Mah LJ 1742), wherein this Court has held that S.167(2) of the Code would...
To continue reading
Request your trial