Page 181 - ELT_15th July 2020_Vol 373_Part 2

2020 ] INTELLIGENCE OFFICER, DRI, CHENNAI v. M. RAVINDRAN 163

Dnyanu Khot v. State of Maharashtra — (2008) 17 SCC 745 — Referred ........................................... [Para 5]
Gurcharan Singh v. State (Delhi Administration) — (1978) 1 SCC 118 — Referred ......................... [Para 5]
Rajnikant Jivanlal Patel v. Narcotic Control Bureau — 1992 (61) E.L.T. 330 (S.C.) — Referred ..... [Para 5]
Sanjay Dutt v. State — (1994) 5 SCC 410 — Relied on ......................................................................... [Para 10]
Uday Mohanlal Acharya v. State of Maharashtra — (2001) 2 SCC 453 — Relied on ...................... [Para 11]
REPRESENTED BY : Shri N.P. Kumar, Special Public Prosecutor, for the
Petitioner.
Shri G. Murugendran, for the Respondent.
[Order]. - This petition had been filed under Section 439(2) of Code of
Criminal Procedure to cancel the bail granted on 5-2-2019 by the First Additional
Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Cases under NDPS Act, Chennai, in Crl. M.P.
No. 131 of 2019 in R.R. No. 09 of 2017 pending before the said Court.
2. The complainant, Intelligence Officer, Directorate of Revenue Intelli-
gence, has filed the present Petition seeking to cancel the bail of the 11th ac-
cused/M. Ravindran. The 11th accused/M. Ravindran was granted bail by the
First Additional Special Judge, Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Cases under
NDPS Act, Chennai in Crl. M.P. No. 131 of 2019 in R.R. No. 09 of 2017 on 5-2-
2019.
3. Among other grounds seeking cancellation of bail, it had been
stressed that on the date when the bail was granted, an application had been
filed on behalf of this accused under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C., seeking to release the
said accused on bail. Simultaneously, the prosecution had also filed an applica-
tion seeking to file a further complaint. The Learned Special Judge, who took into
consideration both the applications, on hearing both the Counsels, had thought it
fit to grant bail to this accused. The relevant portion of the order in which the
Learned Judge had given his reasons for grant of such bail is as follows :
“18. As such the filling of the complaint as against the petitioner by
the respondent after filing this petition by the petitioner would not stand in
any way to defeat the rights of the petitioner in getting default bail as he
has already offered to exercise his indefeasible right and willing to furnish
bail bonds as directed by this Court. As the petition has been filed only for
default bail, the merits and seriousness of the case and the twin conditions
stipulated in Section 37 of NDPS Act will not come into play while dealing
with this petition as per the findings of the Hon’ble Apex Court stated
above. Considering the above stated circumstances and in the interest of
justice, this Court finds that this petition is to be allowed and the point is
decided accordingly. As the case is involved international link some strin-
gent condition can be imposed for ensuring the strict attendance and co-
operation of the accused for conducting smooth trial in this case.”
4. When the matter came up for consideration, this Court had ex-
pressed a view whether bail can be cancelled under Section 439(2) Cr.P.C., even
though this accused had been granted the bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. It was
also felt that since it is a detailed order granting bail, whether the proper proce-
dure would be to file a revision against the said order and whether an applica-
tion under Section 439(2) would be maintainable.
5. Arguments were advanced on the maintainability of the petition.
Finally by order dated 1-10-2019, after examining the ratio laid down in (i) AIR
1990 SC 71 = 1992 (61) E.L.T. 330 (S.C.) [Rajnikant Jivanlal Patel and Another v. In-
telligence Officer, Narcotic Control Bureau, New Delhi], (ii) 2006 Supreme (Mad) 409,
EXCISE LAW TIMES  15th July 2020  181