{"id":59786,"date":"1995-05-01T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1995-04-30T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-thamisharasi-and-ors-on-1-may-1995"},"modified":"2017-11-30T23:32:49","modified_gmt":"2017-11-30T18:02:49","slug":"union-of-india-vs-thamisharasi-and-ors-on-1-may-1995","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-thamisharasi-and-ors-on-1-may-1995","title":{"rendered":"Union Of India vs Thamisharasi And Ors on 1 May, 1995"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Union Of India vs Thamisharasi And Ors on 1 May, 1995<\/div>\n
Bench: J.S. Verma, Mrs. Sujata Manohar<\/div>\n
           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (crl.)  611-612 of 1995\n\nPETITIONER:\nUNION OF INDIA\n\nRESPONDENT:\nTHAMISHARASI AND ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 01\/05\/1995\n\nBENCH:\nJ.S. VERMA & MRS. SUJATA V. MANOHAR\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
JUDGMENT<\/p>\n
1995 (3) SCR 905<\/p>\n
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by<\/p>\n
J. S. VERMA, J.  Leave granted in special leave petitions.\n<\/p>\n
The common question of law for decision is: whether the proviso to sub-
\nsection (2) of section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 can be
\ninvoked by an accused arrested for commission of an offence under the
\nNarcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred
\nto as “the N.D.P.S. Act”.) to claim release on bail on the expiry of the
\ntotal period specified therein if the complaint is not filed within that
\nperiod? The Madras High Court has answered this question in the affirmative
\nand directed the release on bail of the respondents who were arrested for
\nthe commission of offences under the N.D.P.S. Act in default of filing the
\ncomplaint within that period. Hence these appeals by special leave.\n<\/p>\n
The material facts are only a few. Admittedly, the Narcotics Control Bureau
\ngot a tip-off that a consignment of flasks exported from Madras to Israel
\ncontained Hashish concealed therein; and pursuant to this tip-of the
\nconsignment was seized at Israel on 8.6.1994. On the bask of information,
\nthe premises of the accused Armukham, Nagraj and Arif U. Patel were
\nsearched at Madras and their statements recorded by the concerned
\nauthorities. These accused were arrested on 27.6.1994 and produced before
\nthe Magistrate who granted remand from time to time. We need not mention
\nthe facts relating to the orders of preventive detention of the accused
\nunder the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic
\nSubstances Act, 1988 since that is the subject matter of a different
\nproceeding wherein the order of preventive detention was challenged.
\nAdmittedly, the complaint against the accused was not filed within the
\nmaximum period of 90 days of the arrest specified in the proviso to sub-
\nsection (2) of Section 167 Cr. P.C. as the total period for which the
\naccused can be remanded to custody during investigation. Accordingly, the
\naccused claimed to be released on bail as of right on expiry of the
\nspecified period of 90 days and they have been directed to be released on
\nbail on that ground alone. The High Court has rejected the prayer for
\ncancellation of the bail by the impugned order. Hence, these appeals which
\ninvolved for decision the aforesaid common question of law.\n<\/p>\n
It may be mentioned that in the meantime, after the aforesaid prescribed
\nperiod, the complaint has been filed but this subsequent fact is not
\nmaterial for decision of the above question of law. It is common ground
\nthat the legality of the impugned order granting bail is to be decided with
\nreference to its date prior to the filing of the complaint. The power to
\ndetain the accused on the basis of the material now available on merits or
\nthe liability of the accused for preventive detention is a separate
\nquestion which does not arise for consideration herein, and would remain
\nunaffected by the view taken in these appeals on the sole question for
\ndecision.\n<\/p>\n
The submission of the learned Additional Solicitor General is that by
\nvirtue of the special provisions in the N.D.P.S. Act and particularly
\nSections 36 and 37 thereof, the application of the proviso to sub-section
\n(2) of Section 167 Cr. P.C. is excluded in the case of a person accused of
\nany offence punishable under the N.D.P.S. Act. On the other hand, Shri Ram
\nJethmalani, learned counsel for the respondents contends that the scheme of
\nthe N.D.P.S. Act supports the applicability of the proviso to sub-section
\n(2) of Section 167 Cr. P.C. instead of indicating its exclusion in such
\ncases.\n<\/p>\n
The relevant provisions in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 are as
\nunder:\n<\/p>\n
“4. Trial of offence under the Indian Penal Code and other laws. – (1) AH
\noffences under the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) shall be investigated,
\ninquired into, tried, and otherwise deal with ac-cording to the provisions
\nhereinafter contained.\n<\/p>\n
(2) All offences under any other law shall be investigated, inquired into,
\ntried and otherwise dealt with according to the same provisions, but
\nsubject to any enactment for the time being in force regulating the manner
\ntrying or otherwise dealing with such offences.”\n<\/p>\n
“167. Procedure when investigation cannot be completed in twenty-four
\nhours. – (1) Whenever any person is arrested and detained in custody, and
\nit appears that the investigation cannot be completed within the period of
\ntwenty-four hours fixed by Section 57, and there are grounds for believing
\nthat the accusation or information is well-founded, the officer in charge
\nof the police station or the police officer making the investigation, if he
\nis not below the rank of sub- inspector, shall forthwith transmit to the
\nnearest Judicial Magistrate a copy of the entries in the diary hereinafter
\nprescribed relating to the case, and shall at the same time forward the
\naccused to such Magistrate.\n<\/p>\n
(2) The Magistrate to whom an accused person is forwarded under this
\nsection may, whether he has or has not jurisdiction to try the case, from
\ntime to time, authorise the detention of the accused in such custody as
\nsuch Magistrate thinks fit, for a term not exceeding fifteen days in the
\nwhole; and if he has no jurisdiction to try the case or commit it for
\ntrial, and considers further detention unnecessary, he may order the
\naccused to be forwarded to a Magistrate having such jurisdiction.\n<\/p>\n
Provided that –\n<\/p>\n
(a) the Magistrate may authorities the detention of the accused person,
\notherwise than in the custody of the police, beyond the period of fifteen
\ndays if he is satisfied that adequate grounds exist for doing so, but no
\nMagistrate shall authorise the detention of the accused person in custody
\nunder this paragraph for a total period exceed-\n<\/p>\n
(i) ninety days, where the investigation relates to an offence punishable
\nwith death, imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term of not less
\nthan ten years;\n<\/p>\n
(ii) sixty days, were the investigation relates to any other offence,<\/p>\n
and, on the expiry of the said period of ninety days, or sixty days, as the
\ncase may be, the accused person shall be released on bail of he is prepared
\nto and .does furnish bail, and every person released on bail under this
\nsub-section shall be deemed to be so released under the provisions of
\nchapter XXXIII for the purpose of that chapter:\n<\/p>\n
(b)…………..\n<\/p>\n
(c)…………..\n<\/p>\n
Explanation I. – For the avoidance of doubts, it is hereby declared that,
\nnotwithstanding the expiry of the period specified in paragraph (a), the
\naccused shall be detained in custody so long as he does not furnish bail.\n<\/p>\n
xxx                                 xxx                            xxx<\/p>\n
The relevant provisions in the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances
\nAct, 1985 are as under :\n<\/p>\n
“36-A. Offences triable by Special Courts. – (1) Notwithstanding anything
\ncontained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), –\n<\/p>\n
(a)    all offences under this Act shall be triable only by the Special
\nCourt constituted for the area in which the offence has been committed or
\nwhere there are more Special Courts than one for such area, by such one of
\nthem as may be specified in this behalf by the Government.\n<\/p>\n
(b)   where a person accused of or suspected of the commission of an
\noffence under this Act is forwarded to a Magistrate under sub-section (2)
\nor sub-section (2-A) of Section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
\n(2 of 1974), such Magistrate may authorise the detention of such person in
\nsuch custody as he thinks fit for a period not exceeding fifteen days in
\nthe whole where such Magistrate .is a Judicial Magistrate and seven days in
\nthe whole where such Magistrate is an Executive Magistrate :\n<\/p>\n
Provided that where such Magistrate considers –\n<\/p>\n
 (i)  when such person  is forwarded to  him as aforesaid; or<\/p>\n
(ii) upon or at any time before the expiry of the period of detention
\nauthorised by him,<\/p>\n
that the detention of such person is unnecessary, he shall order such
\nperson to be forwarded to the Special Court having jurisdiction ;\n<\/p>\n
(c) the Special Court may exercise, in relation to the person forwarded to
\nit under clause (b), the same power which a Magistrate having jurisdiction
\nto try a case may exercise under Section 167 of the Code of Criminal
\nProcedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), in relation to an accused person in such case
\nwho has been forwarded to him under the section;\n<\/p>\n
xxx                                   xxx                              xxx<\/p>\n
(3) Nothing contained in this section shall be deemed to affect that
\nspecial powers of the High Court regarding bail under Section 439 of the
\nCode of Criminal Procedure 1973 (2 of 1974), and the High Court may
\nexercise such powers including the power under clause (b) of sub-section
\n(1) of that section as if the reference to “Magistrate” in that section
\nincluded also a reference to a “Special Court” constituted under Section
\n36″.\n<\/p>\n
“36-C. Application of Code to proceedings before a Special Court. – Save as
\notherwise provided in this Act, the provisions of the Code of Criminal
\nProcedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), (including the provisions as to bail and
\nbonds) shall apply to the proceedings before a Special Court and for the
\npurposes of the said provisions, the Special Court shall be deemed to be a
\nCourt of Session and the person conducting a prosecution before a Special
\nCourt shall be deemed to be a Public Prosecutor.”\n<\/p>\n
37. Offence to be cognizable and non-bailable – (1) Not-withstanding
\nanything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974).\n<\/p>\n
(a) every offence punishable under this Act shall be cognizable;\n<\/p>\n
(b) no person accused of an offence punishable for a term of imprisonment
\nof five years or more under this Act shall be released on bail or on his
\nown bond unless –\n<\/p>\n
(i) the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the
\napplication for such release, and<\/p>\n
(ii) where the Public Prosecutor oppose the application, the court is
\nsatisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not
\nguilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence
\nwhile on bail.\n<\/p>\n
xxx                                 xxx                            xxx”\n<\/p>\n
“51. Provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to apply to
\nwarrants, arrests, searches and seizures. – The provisions of the Code of
\nCriminal Procedure 1973 (2 of 1974) shall apply, in so far as they are not
\ninconsistent with the provisions of this Act, to all warrants issued and
\narrests, searches and seizures made under this Act.”\n<\/p>\n
Section 36-A makes it clear that a person accused of or suspected of the
\ncommission of an offence under the N.D.P.S. Act is to be forwarded to a
\nMagistrate under sub-section (2) or sub-section (2-A) of Section 167 Cr.
\nP.C.; and the Special Court constituted under Section 36 of the Act
\nexercises, in relation to the person so forward to it, the same power which
\na Magistrate having jurisdiction may exercise under Section 167 Cr. P.C. in
\nrelation to an accused person forwarded to him under that Section. The
\nclear reference to the power of the Magistrate under Section 167 Cr. P.C.,
\nparticularly sub-section (2) thereof, is an indication that no part of sub-
\nsection (2) of Section 167 of the Code is inapplicable in such a case
\nunless there be any specific provision to the contrary in the N.D.P.S. Act.
\nThis conclusion is reinforced by some other provisions of the N.D.P.S. Act,
\nSection 36-C says that “save as otherwise provided in this Act, the
\nprovisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), (including
\nthe provisions as to bail and bonds) shall apply to the proceedings before
\na Special Court.” This also indicates that the provisions in the Code of
\nCriminal Procedure relating to bail and bonds are applicable to the
\nproceedings before a Special Court under the N.D.P.S. Act “save as
\notherwise provided in this Act.” Section 51 also says that the provisions
\nof the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 shall apply, in so far as they are
\nnot inconsistent with the provisions of this Act, to all warrants issued
\nand arrests, searches and seizures made under this Act. Except for Section
\n37 of the N.D.P.S. Act, no other provision of the N.D.P.S. Act is relied on
\nto contend that there is any inconsistent provisions in the N.D.P.S. Act to
\nexclude the applicability merely of the proviso to sub-section (2) of
\nSection 167 Cr.P.C. when sub-section (2) of Section 167 of the Code is made
\nexpressly applicable by Section 36-A of the N.D.P.S. Act.\n<\/p>\n
The question, therefore, is: Whether Section 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act is an
\ninconsistent provision of this kind to exclude the applicability merely of
\nthe proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 167 Cr.P.C. when sub-section (2)
\nof Section 167 is expressly made applicable by the N.D.P.S. Act? The non-
\nobstante clause at the beginning of sub-section (1) of Section 37 indicates
\nthat the provisions in clauses (a) and (b) thereof are inconsistent with
\nthe corresponding provisions of the Code. Clause (a) makes every offence
\npunishable under this Act to be cognizable. Clause (b) imposes limitations
\non granting of bail specified therein which are in addition to the
\nlimitations under the Code of Criminal Procedure on granting of bail as
\nstated in sub-section (2) of Section 37. Clause (b) of sub-section (1)
\nspecifies the two limitations on granting of bail, namely, (1) an
\nopportunity to the Public Prosecutor to oppose the bail application, and
\n(2) satisfaction of the court that there are reasonable grounds for
\nbelieving that the accused is not guilty of such offence and that he is not
\nlikely to commit any offence while on bail. The learned Additional
\nSolicitor General contends that these limitations on granting of bail
\nspecified in clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 37 indicate that the
\napplicability of the proviso to subsection (2) of Section 167 Cr.P.C. is
\nexcluded in such cases. We are unable to accept this contention.\n<\/p>\n
The limitations on granting of bail specified in clause (b) of sub-section
\n(1) of Section 37 come in only when the question of granting bail arises on
\nmerits. By its very nature the provision is not attracted when the grant of
\nbail is automatic on account of the default in filing the complaint within
\nthe maximum period of custody permitted during investigation by virtue of
\nsub-section (2) of Section 167 CR. P.C. The only fact material to attract
\nthe proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 167 is the default in filing the
\ncomplaint within the maximum period specified therein to permit custody
\nduring investigation and not the merits of the case which till the filing
\nof the complaint are not before the court to determine the existence of
\nreasonable grounds for forming the belief about the guilt of the accused.
\nThe learned Additional Solicitor General submitted that this belief can be
\nformed during investigation by reference to the contents of the case diary
\neven before the charge-sheet has been filed. This is fallacious. Till the
\ncomplaint is filed the accused is supplied no material from which he can
\ndischarge the burden placed on him by Section 37(l)(b) of the N.D.P.S. Act.
\nIn our opinion, such a construction of clause (b) of sub-section (1) of
\nSection 37 is not permissible.\n<\/p>\n
Sub-section (3) of Section 36-A provides that the special powers of the
\nHigh Court regarding bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal
\nProcedure shall not be affected by anything contained in Section 36-A of
\nthe N.D.P.S. Act. Sub-section (2) of Section 167 Cr. P.C. has been
\nexpressly applied by Section 36-A of the Act and the scheme of the Act is
\nthat the provisions of the Code would apply except where there is any
\ninconsistent provision in this Act in relation to arrests made under this
\nAct. It is this context in which Section 37(l)(b) has to be construed
\nwherein are specified the limitations on granting of bail. We must,
\ntherefore, look to the corresponding provision in the Code of Criminal
\nProcedure with which Section 37(1) (b) of the Act can be treated to be
\ninconsistent. In the Code of Criminal Procedure, it is Section 437 and not
\nSection 167 which is the corresponding provision for this purpose. The
\ncorresponding limitation on grant of bail in case of non-bailable offence
\nunder Section 437 is as follows:\n<\/p>\n
“(i) such person shall not be so re-leased if there appear reasonable
\ngrounds for believing that he has been guilty of an offence punishable with
\ndeath or imprisonment for life;”\n<\/p>\n
In other words, under Section 437 of the Code the person is not to be
\nreleased on bail “if there appear reasonable grounds for .believing that he
\nhas been guilty of an offence…….” while according to Section 37 of the
\nN.D.P.S. Act, the accused shall not be released on bail unless “the court
\nis satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not
\nguilty of such offence…….”. The requirement of reasonable grounds for
\nbelief in the guilt of the accused to refuse bail is more stringent and,
\ntherefore, more beneficial to the accused than the requirement of
\nreasonable grounds for the belief that he is not guilty of the offence
\nunder Section 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act. Under Section 437 Cr. P.C., the
\nburden is on the prosecution to show the existence of reasonable grounds
\nfor believing that the accused is guilty while under section 37 of the Act
\nthe burden is on the accused to show the existence of reasonable grounds
\nfor the belief that he is not guilty of the offence. In the first case, the
\npresumption of innocence in favour of the accused is displaced only on the
\nprosecution showing the existence of reasonable grounds to believe that the
\naccused is guilty while under the N.D.P.S. Act it is the accused who has to
\nshow that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty.\n<\/p>\n
The limitation on the power to release on bail in Section 437 Cr. P.C. is
\nin the nature of a restriction on that power, if reasonable grounds exist
\nfor the belief that the accused is guilty. On the other hand, the
\nlimitation on this power in Section 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act is in the nature
\nof a condition precedent for the exercise of that power, so that, the
\naccused shall not be released on bail unless the Court is satisfied that
\nthere are reasonable grounds to believe that he is not guilty. Under
\nSection 437 Cr. P.C., it is for the prosecution to show the existence of
\nreasonable grounds to support the belief in the guilt of the accused to
\nattract the restriction on the power to grant bail; but under Section 37
\nN.D.P.S. Act, it is the accused who must show the existence of grounds for
\nthe belief that he is not guilty, to satisfy the condition precedent and
\nlift the embargo on the power to grant bail. This appears to be the
\ndistinction between the two provisions which makes Section 37 of the
\nN.D.P.S. Act more stringent.\n<\/p>\n
Accordingly, provision in Section 37 to the extent it is inconsistent with
\nSection 437 of the Code of Criminal Procedure supersedes the corresponding
\nprovisions in the Code and imposes limitations on granting of bail in
\naddition to the limitations under the Code of Criminal Procedure as
\nexpressly provided in sub-section (2) of Section 37. These limitations on
\ngranting of bail specified in sub-section (1) of Section 37 are in addition
\nto the limitations under Section 437 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and
\nwere enacted only for this purpose; and they do not have the effect of
\nexcluding the applicability of the proviso to sub-section (2) of Section
\n167 Cr.P.C. which operates in a different field relating to the total
\nperiod of custody of the accused permissible during investigation.\n<\/p>\n
In our opinion, in order to exclude the application of the proviso to sub-
\nsection (2) of Section 167 Cr. P.C. in such cases an express provision
\nindicating the contrary intention was required or at least some provision
\nfrom which such a conclusion emerged by necessary implication. As shown by
\nus, there is no such provision in the N.D.P.S. Act and the scheme of the
\nAct indicates that the total period of custody of the accused permissible
\nduring investigation is to be found in Section 167 Cr. P.C. which is
\nexpressly applied. The absence of any provision inconsistent therewith in
\nthis Act is significant.\n<\/p>\n
A comparison with the relevant provisions of the Terrorist and Disruptive
\nActivities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (for short “the TADA Act”) is useful.
\nSection 20 therein provides for modified application of certain provisions
\nof the Code of Criminal Procedure. Sub-section (4) of Section 20 specifies
\nthe modification with which Section 167 Cr. P.C. is applied, to a person
\naccused of an offence under the TADA Act. One of the modifications
\nexpressly made .therein is by the provision for a longer total period of
\npermissible custody during investigation. A corresponding provision is
\nabsent in the N.D.P.S. Act. Thereafter sub-sections (8) and (9) of Section
\n20 are provisions corresponding to sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 37
\nof the N.D.P.S. Act. This similarity between the two Acts is striking and
\nin this context the absence in the N.D.P.S. Act of a provision like sub-
\nsection (4) of Section 20 of TADA Act assumes further significance and
\nsupports the construction we have made of Section 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act.
\nThe TADA Act is a stringent statute to meet an extraordinary situation as
\nin the N.D.P.S. Act. It is also significant that notwithstanding the
\nsubstitution of Section 37 in the N.D.P.S. Act in its present form by Act 2
\nof 1989 subsequent to the enactment of the TADA Act, there is nothing in
\nSection 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act similar to sub-section (4) of Section 20 of
\nthe TADA Act even though there is striking similarity of the provision with
\nsub-sections (8) and (9) of Section 20 of the TADA Act. In our opinion, the
\nlegislative intent of not excluding the applicability of the proviso to
\nsub-section (2) of Section 167 Cr.P.C. in cases of arrest made for
\ncommission of offences under the N.D.P.S. Act, is quite evident.\n<\/p>\n
It is settled that ‘the court will have no power of remand of an accused to
\nany custody unless the power is conferred by law”. (See Natabar Panda Bisnu
\nCharon Panda Batakwshna Panda Babaji Panda v. State of Orissa,<\/a> [1975] Supp.
\nSCR 137). The power must, therefore, be traced to some provision of the
\nstatute. There is clear mention of Section 167 Cr. P.C. in the N.D.P.S. Act
\nfor the exercise of this power. Ordinarily, there must also be an outer
\nlimit prescribed by specification of the total period of permissible remand
\nduring investigation. This too is provided in Section 167. To exclude
\nmerely this part of Section 167, an express provision in the statute was
\nnecessary, assuming there could be conferment of power of remand unlimited
\nin point of time which, in substance, is the argument of the learned
\nAdditional Solicitor General. The effect of the proviso to sub-section (2)
\nof Section 167 Cr.P.C. was stated in Natabar Parida (supra), thus:-\n<\/p>\n
“………………. The law as engrafted in proviso (a) to sections 167(2)
\nand section 309(2) of the New Code confers the powers of remand to jail
\ncustody during the pendency of the investigation only under the former and
\nnot under the latter. Section 309(2) is attracted only after cognizance of
\nan offence has been taken or commencement of trial has proceeded……..
\nBut then the command of the Legislature in proviso (a) is that the accused
\nperson has got to be released on bail if he is prepared to and does furnish
\nbail and cannot be kept in detention beyond the period of 60 days even if
\nthe investigation may still be proceeding. In serious offences of criminal
\nconspiracy – murders, dacoities, robberies by inter-state gangs or the
\nlike, it may not be possible for the police, in the circumstances as they
\ndo exist in the various parts of our country, to complete the investigation
\nwithin the period of 60 days. Yet the intention of the Legislature seems to
\nbe to grant no discretion to the court and to make it obligatory for it to
\nrelease the accused on bail. Of course, it has been provided in proviso (a)
\nthat the accused released on bail under section 167 will be deemed to be so
\nreleased under the provisions of Chapter XXXIII and for the purposes of
\nthat Chapter. That may empower the court releasing him on bail, if it
\nconsiders necessary so to do, to direct that such person be arrested and
\ncommitted to custody as provided in sub-section (5) of section 437
\noccurring in Chapter XXXIII. It is also clear that after the taking of the
\ncognizance the power of remand is to be exercised under section 309 of the
\nNew Code. But if it is not possible to complete the investigation within a
\nperiod of 60 days then even in serious and ghastly types of crimes the
\naccused will be entitled to be released on bail. Such a law may be a
\n“paradise for the criminals,” but surely it would not be so, as sometimes
\nit is supposed to be, because of the courts. It would be so under the
\ncommand of the Legislature.”\n<\/p>\n
(at pages 142-143) (emphasis supplied)<\/p>\n
The learned Additional Solicitor General placed strong reliance on the
\ndecision of this Court in Narcotics Control Bureau v. Kishan Lal and
\nOthers,<\/a> [1991] 1 S.C.C. 705. The only thing decided in that case is that
\nthe power of the High Court to grant bail under Section 439 of the Code of
\nCriminal Procedure is subject to the limitations contained in the amended
\nSection 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act since those additional limitations are
\napplicable to the High Court also in the matter of granting bail. That is a
\ndifferent question. That decision does not, therefore, answer the question
\nwhich arises for consideration in the present case. No other decision of
\nthis Court has been relied on by either side at the hearing before us to
\nsupport a different view.\n<\/p>\n
For the aforesaid reasons, these appeals are dismissed resulting in the
\ninterim orders made herein being vacated. However, it is made clear that
\nthis decision will not affect any other order made in accordance with law
\nwhich may be in force permitting the continuance in detention of the
\nrespondents.\n<\/p>\n
Appeals dismissed.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Union Of India vs Thamisharasi And Ors on 1 May, 1995 Bench: J.S. Verma, Mrs. Sujata Manohar CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.) 611-612 of 1995 PETITIONER: UNION OF INDIA RESPONDENT: THAMISHARASI AND ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 01\/05\/1995 BENCH: J.S. VERMA & MRS. SUJATA V. MANOHAR JUDGMENT: JUDGMENT 1995 (3) SCR 905 The […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-59786","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nUnion Of India vs Thamisharasi And Ors on 1 May, 1995 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-thamisharasi-and-ors-on-1-may-1995\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Union Of India vs Thamisharasi And Ors on 1 May, 1995 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-thamisharasi-and-ors-on-1-may-1995\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1995-04-30T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-11-30T18:02:49+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"22 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-vs-thamisharasi-and-ors-on-1-may-1995#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-vs-thamisharasi-and-ors-on-1-may-1995\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Union Of India vs Thamisharasi And Ors on 1 May, 1995\",\"datePublished\":\"1995-04-30T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-11-30T18:02:49+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-vs-thamisharasi-and-ors-on-1-may-1995\"},\"wordCount\":4390,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-vs-thamisharasi-and-ors-on-1-may-1995#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-vs-thamisharasi-and-ors-on-1-may-1995\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-vs-thamisharasi-and-ors-on-1-may-1995\",\"name\":\"Union Of India vs Thamisharasi And Ors on 1 May, 1995 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1995-04-30T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-11-30T18:02:49+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-vs-thamisharasi-and-ors-on-1-may-1995#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-vs-thamisharasi-and-ors-on-1-may-1995\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-vs-thamisharasi-and-ors-on-1-may-1995#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Union Of India vs Thamisharasi And Ors on 1 May, 1995\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Union Of India vs Thamisharasi And Ors on 1 May, 1995 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-thamisharasi-and-ors-on-1-may-1995","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Union Of India vs Thamisharasi And Ors on 1 May, 1995 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-thamisharasi-and-ors-on-1-may-1995","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1995-04-30T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-11-30T18:02:49+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"22 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-thamisharasi-and-ors-on-1-may-1995#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-thamisharasi-and-ors-on-1-may-1995"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Union Of India vs Thamisharasi And Ors on 1 May, 1995","datePublished":"1995-04-30T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-11-30T18:02:49+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-thamisharasi-and-ors-on-1-may-1995"},"wordCount":4390,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-thamisharasi-and-ors-on-1-may-1995#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-thamisharasi-and-ors-on-1-may-1995","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-thamisharasi-and-ors-on-1-may-1995","name":"Union Of India vs Thamisharasi And Ors on 1 May, 1995 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1995-04-30T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-11-30T18:02:49+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-thamisharasi-and-ors-on-1-may-1995#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-thamisharasi-and-ors-on-1-may-1995"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-thamisharasi-and-ors-on-1-may-1995#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Union Of India vs Thamisharasi And Ors on 1 May, 1995"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/59786","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=59786"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/59786\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=59786"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=59786"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=59786"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}