Simplified Explanation of the Judgment

This case concerns a 17-year-old (appellant) who was caught as a helper (khalasi) in a truck from which 1814.70 kilograms of ganja was recovered by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) in Patna. He was apprehended on the spot in January 2017.

The appellant claimed he was a juvenile at the time of the offence. The Juvenile Justice Board assessed his age as 16 years, 9 months, and 21 days and declared him a juvenile, but since he was over 16 years and the offence was considered a heinous offence, the Board transferred the case to the Children’s Court for trial as an adult under Section 18(3) of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015.

He applied for bail before the Children’s Court, which rejected it in August 2019. He then appealed to the Patna High Court.

Arguments by the Appellant

• He was innocent and falsely implicated.
• He had no criminal history.
• He had no knowledge about ganja being in the truck.
• Recovery was not from his conscious possession.
• As a declared juvenile, his bail should be decided under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act, which generally favors bail unless release may cause harm or defeat justice.

Arguments by the Union of India (Respondent)

• The recovery of ganja was of huge commercial quantity.
• Bail must be tested under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, which imposes strict conditions before bail can be granted.
• Appellant was working with the driver and others in transporting ganja.
• His release would defeat the ends of justice.

Core Legal Question

Should bail of a juvenile in an NDPS case be governed by Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 or by the stricter Section 37 of the NDPS Act, 1985?

Court’s Analysis

Justice Sudhir Singh reviewed decisions of different High Courts and the Supreme Court:

• Allahabad High Court (Praveen Kumar Maurya v. State of U.P., 2011) and Orissa High Court (Sumanta Bindhani v. State of Orissa, 2017; Ranjit Paika v. State of Orissa, 2018) held that Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act overrides Section 37 of NDPS Act because it has broader non obstante clause (“notwithstanding anything in CrPC or any other law”).
• Thus, in the case of juveniles, bail is to be considered under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act.

The Court accepted this interpretation:

• Section 37 of NDPS Act is not applicable to juveniles.
• Bail of a juvenile must be considered under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act.

However, in this case:

• The appellant was already ordered to be tried as an adult by the Board and Children’s Court.
• He was apprehended with others transporting ganja.
• His release could associate him with criminals engaged in drug trafficking.
• Therefore, his release would defeat the ends of justice, which is an exception under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act.

Court’s Decision

• The appeal was dismissed.
• Bail was denied.
• The trial court was directed to expedite the trial and finish it preferably within six months.

Significance or Implication of the Judgment

This ruling clarifies a critical point of law:

• For juveniles, bail must be decided under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act, not under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.
• This interpretation strengthens the rights of juveniles and places them under special protection, even in cases involving heinous offences.

However, the judgment also shows that courts can still deny bail to a juvenile if releasing him may expose him to criminal association, moral danger, or would defeat justice.

For the public, this case highlights the balance between child protection and drug law enforcement. While juveniles are entitled to special safeguards, the courts can still refuse bail where the circumstances show risk of continued involvement in crime.

Legal Issue(s) Decided and the Court’s Reasoning

• Does Section 37 NDPS Act apply to juveniles?
  → No. Section 12 of Juvenile Justice Act overrides it; bail must be considered under the JJ Act.
• Was bail rightly denied?
  → Yes. Because release would likely bring the juvenile into association with drug traffickers and defeat justice.
• What directions were given?
  → Trial court to complete trial within six months.

Judgments Referred by Parties

• Antaryami Patra v. State of Orissa, 1993 Cri. L.J. 1908 (Orissa HC)

Judgments Relied Upon or Cited by Court

• Praveen Kumar Maurya v. State of U.P., 2011 Cr. L.J. 200 (Allahabad HC)
• Sumanta Bindhani v. State of Orissa, 2017 (I) OLR 1137 (Orissa HC)
• Ranjit Paika v. State of Orissa, 2018 (II) OLR 13 (Orissa HC)
• Solidaire India Ltd. v. Fairgrowth Financial Services Ltd., JT 2001 (2) SC 639
• Sarwan Singh v. Kasturi Lal, AIR 1977 SC 265
• Union of India v. Ranjeet Kumar Sinha, (2019) 7 SCC 505
• Satpal Singh v. State of Punjab, (2018) 12 SCC 813
• State of Kerala v. Rajesh, Criminal Appeal Nos. 154–157/2020 (SC)

Case Title

Anamul Haque v. Union of India (through Directorate of Revenue Intelligence)

Case Number

Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 84 of 2020 (arising from Criminal Misc. No. 73385 of 2019)

Citation(s)

2021(1)PLJR 444

Coram and Names of Judges

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sudhir Singh

Names of Advocates and Appearance

• Mr. Tej Pratap Singh — for the appellant
• Dr. K.N. Singh, Additional Solicitor General, and Mr. Awadhesh Kumar Pandey, C.G.C. — for the respondent

Link to Judgment

https://patnahighcourt.gov.in/vieworder/MjQjODQjMjAyMCM4I04=-XcqJqjiEXhc=

If you found this explanation helpful and wish to stay informed about how legal developments may affect your rights in Bihar, you may consider following Samvida Law Associates for more updates.