New Delhi: The Tripura high court has said the general rule of ‘bail not jail’ is not applicable to those accused in cases registered under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS Act) and the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA).In NDPS Act cases, Justice Arindham Lodh observed that stringent provisions of the law make bail an exception rather than a rule, Bar and Bench reported.The Supreme Court, on a number of occasions, has highlighted that bail should be the rule and jail an exception to prevent “unnecessary arrests”. The principle was first laid down by the apex court during the landmark judgment in the State of Rajasthan V. Balchand alias Baliay case in 1978. Former judge V.R. Krishna Iyer had held, “The basic rule may perhaps be tersely put as bail, not jail.”However, Justice Lodh held that jail is the rule in the case of NDPS and UAPA cases. “…courts should not forget the rigours of NDPS and UAPA Act where it is, by now well settled that bail is not a rule, but, an exception,” Justice Lodh said.He also took exception to lower courts dealing with NDPS cases “irresponsibly and rampantly” granting bail to accused persons on the grounds of procedural violations. He made it clear that procedural violations or irregularities should not be considered when deciding on bail pleas of those accused in NDPS and UAPA cases.Justice Lodh said granting bail in NDPS cases citing procedural issues amounts to a violation of Section 37 of the NDPS Act. The particular Section of the Act lays down limitations with regard to granting bail. The judge said procedural violations should be considered only during the trial stage, not at the bail stage.The court’s observations were made during a hearing on the Tripura government’s plea, which sought cancellation of bail granted to three accused persons in an NDPS case. The government held that bail granted to the accused was in violation of the NDPS Act, while alleging that the accused were habitual offenders in the trade of illicit substances.“Learned Special Judge did not consider at all the twin conditions as embodied in Section 37 of the NDPS Act and released the accused-respondents on bail on the erroneous conception that since there were procedural violations/irregularities, the accused–respondents were entitled to get the benefit of bail,” said the high court.Allowing the state government’s appeal, the high court noted that the trial court had “totally misdirected and misread the provisions” of the Act in releasing the accused on bail. The court ordered two of the accused, out on bail, to surrender while the third accused is still in jail in relation to another case.
