Rupak Shil Vs Union of India (Tripura High Court)
Tripura High Court held that an order accepting bond under section 88 of the Code of Criminal Procedure [CrPC]from the accused doesn’t amount to a grant of bail. Accordingly, the present bail application is disposed of.
Facts- This bail application has been filed on behalf of accused Moudud Ahmed Choudhury, the owner of the vehicle, in connection with DRI Case No. 03/CL/NDPS/DRI/AGT/2024-25, corresponding to Special (NDPS) Case No.180/2024, under Sections 8(c) & 9(A) of the NDPS Act, punishable under Sections 21(a), 22(c), 23(c), 25(a), 28 and 29 of the said Act.
Conclusion- Apex Court in Tarsem Lal held that when an accused furnishes a bond in accordance with Section 88 CrPC for appearance before a criminal court, he agrees and undertakes to appear before the criminal court regularly and punctually and on his default, he agrees to pay the amount mentioned in the bond. Section 441CrPC deals with a bond to be furnished by an accused when released on bail. Therefore, in our considered view, an order accepting bonds under Section 88 from the accused does not amount to a grant of bail.
Therefore, law is settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that in such a case when summons is issued by the Court and accused appears on receipt of the same, the Court can ask for a bond under Section 88 of CrPC and cannot take him into custody. In the present case in hand also, the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence did not arrest the present accused before the final complaint after investigation was submitted by them in the Court of learned Special Judge.
