Guttal, J.:— The five accused are alleged to have committed the offences Dunishable under section 21 r/w. section 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, hereinafter referred to as “the N.D.P.S Act” and section 135(1)(a) and 135(1)(b) both r/w. section 135(1)(ii) of the Customs Act, 1962. The applicants herein Ashak Hussain Altah Detha @ Siddique and Riyaz Afzal are, respectively, accused Nos. 4 and 5. They are hereinafter referred to as the applicants or Ashak and Riyaz. They apply for bail.

1. THE PROSECUTION CASE.

2. The accused No. 1 Hamid Khan was residing in Room No. 301 and the applicants in Room No. 210 of R.K Hotel, Lamington Road. Bombay. Saidulla, who is in Pakistan, despatched a large consignment of narcotic drugs on 19th July 1989, A torry, driven by Shersingh, carried the contraband Accused No. 1 Hamid Khan met the applicants in Room No. 201 and inquired of them whether the consignment had arrived. Meanwhile, Shersingh met the applicants and told them that he had brought the consignment from Pakistan. The applicants took Shersingh to the room of the accused No. 1. Accused No. 1 took Shersingh in a Maruti Car with him. These facts have been recorded in the statements of the applicants under section 108 of the Customs Act, According to these statements, the role of the applicants in the transaction ended with the introduction of Shersingh with the accused No. 1 Hamid Khan.

3. The consignment was unloaded under the supervision of Hamid Khan-Accused No. 1, into two fiat cars driven by the Accused Nos. 2 and 3. The Officers of the Respondent No. 1 intercepted the cars and seized the contrband.

4. The statement of Accused No. 1 Hamid Khan is also recorded under section 108 of the Customs Act. He claims to have handed over the keys of the cars to Afzal. Accused No. 5 and returned to his room. After an hour or so, presumably after delivery or disposal of the contraband, Afzal handed over the keys back to him.

II. DETENTION AND ASSAULT BY THE INVESTIGATION OFFICERS:

5. Admittedly, the statements of all the accused were recorded by the same Officers between the midnight of 19th July 1989 when the former were detained and the midnight of 20th July 1989. Thus, for 24 hours the accused were under detention by the Respondents Officers. They were not allowed to leave the offices of the Respondent No. 1 at any time. They were not produced before the Magistrate within 24 hours as required by law. They were produced before the Maoist rate on 21st July, 1989 at 5.20 p.m The applicants did not have legal assistance. The applicants contend that they complained to the learned Magistrate of assault by the Officers who recorded the statements. However, the order of the learned Magistrate dated 21st July 1989, remarding the accused to judicial custody records that the accused made no complaint of ill-treatment. However, immediately on their admission in the jail, they made a complaint to the Authority of the jail about the assault and pain in the bodies. On the application of the applicants, they were examined by the Chief Medical Officer, Bombay Central Prison. The applicants claim that there is record of injuries made by the Chief Medical Officer, Bombay Central Prison Hospital, Bombay. Therefore, the report of the Chief Medical Officer, Bombay Central Prison Hospital, Bombay, was called for. He has made two reports, the substance of which is as under:—

He examined Afzal, accused No. 5 on 22nd July 1989. Afzal complained of assault by stick at ??? p.m on 20th July 1989. The report of the Chief Medical Officer is that Afzal had tender ness on (a) the left ??? region (b) back (c) right scapular region and (d) right and left gluteal regions.

6. Similarly, he examined Ashak, accused No. 4 on the same day, who complained of assault by stick on chest at 4.00 p.m on 20th July 1989. The injuries, were more severe than those on the body of Afzal. They are (a) bruises on the interscapular region, size 2″× 1/2″, 3″ × 1/2″ and 2″ × 1/2″; (b) bruises on the left side of neck size 2″ × 1/2″;(c) tenderness on both soles of feet, left gluteal region and on the left cheek (d) bruises on right middle of lower leg.

III. THE POINTS URGED:

7. On these facts, Mr. Vakil urged these points:

(a) In view of the injuries found immediately upon their admission into the jail, the confessions must be held to have been extorted by physical assault and illegal detention. The time of the assault stated by the applicants conforms to the period they were detained for interrogation. Therefore, the confessional statements are not voluntary and they should be rejected.

(b) Secondly, what are recorded as statements of the applicants are partial record of what they had stated. Hamid Khan has implicated the applicants because Hamid Khan says that he handed over the keys of the cars to the applicants who took them and returned them after an hour. The consistent practice of all the investigating officers is to confront the, maker of the statement with the statements of other accused who implicate him Either this was not done or if it was done, the denials of the applicants of the incriminating statement made by Hamid Khan have not been recorded. Thus, what have been produced, before the Court as the statements of the applicants are not a full record of what the applicants had stated.

8. Mr. Gupte urged that this is not a fit case for releasing the applicants, on bail. According to him, section 37 of the N.D.P.S Act precludes every Court including the High Court and the Supreme Court from releasing the accused on bail except in the circumstances stated therein.

IV. “ARREST” - MEANING AND COMMENCEMENT OF:

9. Admittedly, the applicants were detained without any authority, from the midnight of 20th July 1989 to 5.20 p.m of 21st July 1989—for 17 hours. Their arrest has been so recorded that their production before the Magistrate falls within 24 hours stipulated by Article 22(2) of the Constitution of India and section 57 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The prosecution urges that after the “arrest” they were not detained beyond 24 hours. This submission is a distortion of the true meaning of the constitutional guarantee against detention without the sanction of judicial tribunal. They word “arrest”, has not been defined in the Code of Criminal Procedure or in any other law. The true meaning needs to be understood. The word “arrest” is a term—of art. It starts with the arrester taking a person into his custody by action or words restraining him from moving anywhere beyond the arrester's control and it continues until the person so restrained is either released from custody or, having been brought before a Magistrate, is remanded in custody by the Magistrate is judicial Act. 1(Christie v. Leachinsky), (1947) 1 All E.R 667, 2(Holgate Mohammed v. Duke), (1934) 1 All E.R 1054. Both quoted in WORDS AND PHRASES LEGALLY DEFINED Vol. 1. Third Edition page 113. In substance, “arrest” is the restraint on a man's personal liberty by the power or colour of lawful authority. In its natural sense also “arrest” means the restraint on or deprivation of one's personal liberty.

10. It is thus clear that arrest being a restraint on the personal liberty, it is complete when such restraint by an authority, commences.3 Whether a person is arrested or not does not depend on the legality of the act. It is enough if an authority clothed with the power to arrest, actually imposes the restraint by physical act or words. Whether a person is arrested depends on whether he has been deprived of his personal liberty to go where he pleases.4 It stands to reason, therefore, that what label the Investigating Officer affixes to his act of restraint is irrelevent. For the same reason, the record of the time of arrest is not an index to the actual time of arrest, The arrest commences with the restraint placed on the liberty of the accused and not with the time of “arrest” recorded by the Arresting Officers.

11. The argument that the applicants were not arrested at the mid night of 19th July 1989 but were detained for interrogation is untenable. Since the offences under the N.D.P.S Act are cognisable5, the Investigating Officers possess the authority to arrest without warrant. They arrest a suspect or do not arrest at all. The “detention in custody for interrogation” is unknown to law. Interrogation is known. A person may be lawfully interrogated. But during such interrogation he is a freeman. If he is detained, not allowed to leave the office of the Respondent No. 1 and compelled to eat and sleep there, he is under detention. This restraint is in reality an arrest. In this case, the applicants were not allowed to leave the office of the Respondent No. 1 after the midnight of 19th July 1989. In the circumstances of this case, the applicants were arrested at the midnight of 19th July 1989.

12. The Investigating Officers may lawfully detain a suspect for an offence. But detention in custody for interrogation is not authorised by law. The Investigating Officers may detain for an offence only. In an English case where the Customs Officers detained a person “for helping with their inquiries”, it was held that there was no authority in the Custom Officers to detain a person, except, for an offence. The principal that emerges is this: Any restrain on a person's liberty except for an offence is illegal. There is no authority in the Investigating Officers to detain a person for the purpose of interrogation or helping them in the enquiry.

13. On this principle it follows that the detention of the applicants on the midnight of 19th July 1989 was illegal if it was not for having committed an offence under the N.O.P.S Act. If it was for having committed an offence the detention was “arrest” and it commenced at the midnight of 19th July 1989.

14. My experience of such illegal detention is not confined to this case. In 6(Arvind Mehram Patel v. The Intelligence Officer, Narcotics Control Bureau, Bombay), Criminal Application No. 2508 of 1989 decided on 9th November, 1989, the suspects were detained from 1.00 p.m of 1st October 1989 to 4.00 p.m of 4th October 1989 when they were produced before the Magistrate During this period, they too were assaulted. In (Prajesh Shantilal Vaghani v. The Intelligence Officer, Narcotics Control Bureau, Bombay), Criminal Application No. 2631 of 1989 decided on 6-12-1989 and 7(Hamid Umar Patel v. Y.O Shah. Intelligence Officer, Narcotics Control Bureau Bombay), Criminal Appli cation No. 2677 of 1989 decided on 6-12-1989, the accused were similarly detained from 6th September, 1989 to 10th September 1989 and were assaulted. They were produced before the Magistrate on 10th September, 1989. The tendency to detain suspects for questioning and manipulate the record to show a later time of arrest is a reprehensible practice of recent origin followed only by the Officers of the Customs Department and the Narcotics Control Bureau. In cases under the N.O.P.S Act and Customs Act, the prosecution is, no doubt, entitled to rely upon the statements of the accused recorded during investigation. But what the investigating Officers do, in such cases, is to procure statements, by assault, illegal detention and fear of continued detention. Then they present these documents as “statements”. That is not what the law permits them to do. They can certainly rely upon the statements made by the accused voluntarily. But that is different from saying that the statements may be procured by any means and the accused be convicted on such statements. This manipulation and abuse of the legislative sanction for the use of statements of the Accused requires to be censured in the strongest terms.

V. Effect of Illegal Detention and Assault:

15. The illegal detention is compounded by physical assault. No doubt, in the case of Afzal there were no marks of injuries such as bruises, haemotoma and so on. But the medical evidence is that he had tenderness on six parts of his body. It is difficult to hold, as has been suggested by Mr. Gupte, that the pain and tenderness can by feigned. Doctors cannot make out tenderness without physical examination. Even if a patient feigns pain in the body, it is the response to physical examination that leads to the conclusion of tenderness.

16. In the case of Ashak, Accused No. 4, there are actual marks of injuries. There is no doubt therefore that Ashak too was assaulted. It is significant that the parts like interscapular region and gluteal region were chosen for the assault in the case of both the applicants.

17. Mr. Gupte made a feeble suggesstion, unsubstantiated by facts, that the reports of the Chief Medical Officer could be procured. No such accusation is made in the affidavits, besides, no factual basis for such unjustified accusation is discernible from the circumstances of this case. The Chief Medical Officer, a public servant, has no axe to grind by making false reports. In any case, the suggestion is unfounded.

18. The Investigating Officers, no doubt, suffer from a disadvantage as such crimes are committed in secrecy and at odd hours of the night. The intelligence on the basis of which the Investigating Officers act may furnish accurate information and the interception of the contraband may have been honest. But the intelligence on the basis of which the Investigating Officers act, has to be transformed into legaily valid statements of the accused. There is no substatute for this legal requirement. However honestly the intelligence Officers believe that the applicants are guilty of the crime, the subjective conviction of the Investigating Officers about the guilt of the accused cannot be a substitute for legally admissible evidence. The statements of the applicants procured in their oppressed state of mind resulting from assault, fear, denial of access to the family, should be viewed with great caution. This is especially so, at the stage of granting bail, for, the prospect conviction on the basis of such material becomes poor.

19. Mr. Gupte has no explanation about the injuries nor has he any other alernative theory about how the applicants received injuries. Indeed Mr. Gupte confessed that he was unable to explain how the injuries were caused. In the absence of any explanation. I hold that the injuries were caused by assault by the Investigating Officers.

20. A look at the affidavit made by S.K Pandey, Intelligence Officer reveals that the prosecution has made no attempt to meet the case of the accused. Mr. Pandey does not state that he was present when the applicants were produced before the Magistrate on 21st July 1989. This is important because the Magistrate records that no complaint was made by the Applicants against the Investigating Officers and the Applicants urge that they did. On the basis of the statement in the Order of the learned Magistrate, Mr. Gupte urged that the evidence of injuries is fabricated and faise. According to the accused, the learned Magistrate, who hears application for remand, is burdened with scores of applications which he disposes off in short time. Therefore, they urge that there was no occasion to ask whether the accused had any complaint against the Intelligence Officers. In view of this controversy, it was necessary for the prosecution to assert through the statement of an Officer present in the Court that the learned Magistrate did ask the accused and the accused replied that they had no complaint. Mr. Pandey does not say that he was present in the Court. His affidavit is notable not for what it reveals but for what it conceals. There are no statements as to how the statements were recorded, who interpreted them when the applicants were detained and so on. All that he asserts that the accused were not assaulted and that there were no injuries on their body when they were produced before the learned Magistrate. The affidavit is a catalogue of arguments and not of facts.

21. Mr. Gupte also urged that at the stage of considering application for bait, it is not open to the Court to examine whether the statements are voluntary or whether the accused were illegally detained and assaulted. According to him, the statements as they are and the complaint as it is, is the ultimate truth for the purpose of the application for bail. The submission is without any merit. It ignores that grant or refusal to grant bail being a matter of discretion, every fact relevant to the exercise of such discretion has to be considered. However, well intended the action of the prosecution is, if the circumstances reveal that the statements on the basis of which the prosecution seeks to have the accused convicted, are not voluntary, the Court's discretion must naturally be influenced by the deplorable practices followed by the Investigating Officers for procuring the statements. The accused who are tried on the basis of such tainted evidence may well be acquitted. But then the time spent in custody does not return to them after their acquittal. It is, therefore, necessary to consider whether the prosecution is in possession of credible evidence.

22. To sum up, therefore, the statements of the applicants were procured while they were in illegal detention and phisically assaulting them. The reports of the Chief Medical Officer reveal that the assault took place while they were in custody of the Investigating officers. The statements of the applicants which include confessions are, therefore, tainted by violence and crime. These statements, though admissible in evidence, are tainted by illegality. They would need a very strong corroboration before they are acceptable. The statement of Hamid Khan, accused No. 1 implicates the applicants. But the attention of the applicants was never drawn to those parts of the statement of Hamid Khan which implicate the applicants. If the applicants were confronted with those statements they must have denied the role ascribed to them. If they did deny, the Investigating Officers were in duty bound to record the denials too. If the applicants were not confronted with the statement of Hamid Khan, or if the applicants denials are not recorded, the record of the statements cannot be said to be complete and faithful. Hamid Khan, being a co-accused cannot corroborate the statements of the applicants. The statements of the applicants need to be kept out of view unless they receive corroboration from other sources. There is no such corroboration except from the statement of Hamid Khan who is a co-accused. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that the prosecution is in possession of evidence on the basis of which conviction is reasonably certain.

VI. High Court's Power to release under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure - Is it Limited by section 37 of the N.D.P.S Act?

23. Lastly, Mr. Gupte urged an important but untenable argument, the substance of which is this. Section 37 of N.D.P.S Act, inter alia provides that no person accused of an offence punishable for a term of imprisonment of five years or more under the Act shall be released on bail or on his own bond unless the Court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. According to Mr. Gupte, this limitation applies not only to the Court trying the offence but also to the High Court and the Supreme Court. “The Court according to Mr. Gupte, is a general expression including in its ambit every Court dealing with cases under the N.D.P.S Act. Therefore, the argument proceeds, notwithstanding the High Court's power to release accused on bail under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the High Court cannot release an accused suspected to have committed an offence under the N.D.P.S Act unless it is satisfied that there are no reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of such offence.

24. It is necessary to set out briefly the scheme of the constitution and the conception of the Special Court constituted by the N.D.P.S Act. The word “Court” has not been defined in the Act. The N.D.P.S Act was amended with effect from 6th January 1989 by Act 2 of 1989. section 36 of the N.D.P.S Act before the amendment provided that, notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedute, any offence punishable under sections 26, 27 and 32 of the Act may be tried summarily by the Magistrate of the First Class. Section 37, as it stood before the N.D.P.S (Amendment) Act, 1988, made every offence under the N.D.P.S Act cognizable. These sections were omitted by the N.D.P.S (Amendment) Act No. 2 of 1959. In their place sections 36, 36a, 36b, 36c, 36d and 37 were introduced. Section 36 empowers the Government to constitute Special Courts for trying offences under the Act. The offences under the N.D.P.S Act are exclusively triable by such Special Courts. The Special Court shall consist of a Single Judge who shall have held the office of the Sessions Judge or Additional Sessions Judge immdiately before his appointment as a Special Judge. Under section 36A, all the offences under the N.D.P.S Act shall be triable only by the Special Court or until the Special Court is constituted by the Sessions Judge. Since the Special Court is the trial Court, the acucsed, upon his arrest, has to be produced before the Magistrate in accordance with section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Upon such production, the Magistrate is empowerred to authorise detention for a period not exceeding 15 days, The Magistrate is then required to forward the accused to the Special Court which possesses the same power which the Magistrate has under section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Special Court is empowered to take cognizance of a crime under the Act upon perusaf of this police report or upon a complaint made by an officer of the Central Government or State Government authorised in that behalf.

25. Section 36A(3) goes on to lay down that “Nothing contained “In this Section” shall be deemed to affect the special powers of the High Court regarding bail under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973——“. Clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 439 empowers the High Court to set aside or modify the condition imposed by Magistrate while releasing an accused on ball. The Special Court is empowered to take cognizance under section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Section 36A(3) goes on to clarify that the powers of modification of the conditions under section 439(1)(b) may be exercised by the High Court as if the word “Magistrate” was substituted by the words “Special Court”. For the purpose of bail and bail bond, the Special Court shall be deemed to be a Court of Session and the person conducting a prosecution before such Court, a Public Prosecutor.

26. The question is whether the words “the Court” in section 37 of the N.D.P.S Act mean only the Special Court constituted under that Act or includes every other Court including the High Court hearing cases under the N.D.P.S Act. In order to understand this submission its effect must be borne in mind. The first effect is to impose a limitation on the wide powers of the High Court under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, thereby taking away an established jurisdiction of the High Court. Secondly, in order to read “the Court” to include the High Court and the Supreme Court, the language used by the Parliament will have to be strained.

27. in section 36 as it stood before the commencement of the N.D.P.S (Amendment) Act, the word “Court” did not occur for the simple reason that the offences under the Act were triable by Magistrates of the First Class. In the place of a Magistrate, the Legislature has created a Special Court. In a sense, the words “the Court” used in section 36a and section 37 are substitute for “a Magistrate of the First Class”. Thus, the Court which tried the offences before the commencement of Amendment Act No. 2 of 1989, was the Magistrate. No doubt, sections 36 and 37 which empowered the Magistrate to try the cases have been repealed by act 2 of 1989 and substituted inter alia by section 37. However, reference to the repealed provision for the purpose of ascertaining the meaning of the words that replaced the repealed words is a recognised rule of construction of statutes.

28. The legislature which employed the words “the Court” in the place of “the Magistrate of the First Class”, naturally conceived “the Court” as the substitute for “a Magistrate of the First Class”. The substitution of “the Court” for “a Magistrate” establishes a functional identity between the two. It cannot therefore be said that the High Court falls within the meaning of “the Court” which is the historical context must mean the Court taking cognizance of the crime.

29. A comparative analysis of the restricted power of the Magistrate and the wide power of the High Court in the matter of bail furnishes and other guiding principle. Section 437 empowers a Court “other than the High Court or Court of Session” to release the accused on bail. In other words, section 437 does not apply to the High Court or the Court of Session. Clauses (i) and (ii) of sub-section (1) of section 437 impose restrictions on the power of the Magistrate to release the accused on bail. Section 437(1) precludes the Magistrate from releasing an accused on bail (i) “if there appear reasonable grounds for believing that he has been guilty of an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life” or (ii) “such person has been previously convicted of an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life or imprisonment for seven years or more.” There are no such limitations on the power of the High Court or the Court of Session under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Therefore, the jurisdiction of the High Court or the Court of Session in the matter of granting bail in cognizable offences is unfettered and is not limited by the nature of the offence or the sentence prescribed therefor. The limitation imposed on “the Court” by section 37(1)(ii) is that before releasing a person on bail, the Court must be satisfied that “there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence”. An identical restriction is found in section 437(1)(i) of the Code of Criminal Procedure which limits the Magistrate's power to release on bail so that he shall not release the accused if “there appear reasonable grounds for believing that he has been guilty of offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life”. The Parliament which substituted the Special Court for the Magistrate as the Court of trial, was aware of this distinction and the unfettered authority of the High Court and the Court of Sessions to release accused on bail. The Parliament which created the Special Court conceived it as the Court of trial subject to the limitations on the power to grant bail which are similar to the restrictions on the Magistrate's power under section 437 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Thus, the Special Court and the Magistrate's Court have an identity distinct from that of the High Court. Therefore, the Parliament could not have intended to equate the Court which is subject to restrictions similar to those in section 437 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with the High Court whose power to release on bail is not so restricted.

30. Against, the background of these provision, consider certain rules of construction. The Parliament was aware of the distinction between the powers of the High Court and the trial Court. As already stated, section 36A(3) expressly excludes the High Court from the operation of that section “regarding bail under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973”. Since the Legislature was aware of the High Court's special Dower to grant bail, it is reasonable to hold that the Parliament which employed the words “the Court” designedly omitted the use of the words “the High Court or the Supreme Court”. In order to know what a statute does mean, it is one important step to know what it does not mean and if it is be quite clear that there is something which does not mean, then that which is suggested or supposed to be what it does mean must be in harmony and consistent with what it is clear that it does not mean. It follows that what a statute forbids must be consistent with what it permits. Thus, if section 37 forbids the High Court from granting bail except on the conditions stipulated therein, such prohibition must be consistent with the other provisions of the N.D.P.S Act and the Code of Criminal Procedure.

31. The Parliament has used the words “High Court” in section 36 of the N.D.P.S Act whereunder the Special Court is constituted with the concurrence of the Chief Justice of the High Court. Section 36B of the Act invests the High Court with the appellate and revisional jurisdiction over the Special Court. The Parliament, aware of the special jurisdiction of the High Court, has designedly refrained from employing the words “High Court”, or “Supreme Court” in section 37. Therefore, the legislative intent clearly is to exclude the High Court from the ambit of “the Court” in section 37 of the Act. The argument that “the Court”. referred to in section 37 of the Act, includes the High Court, does not answer the legislative design in omitting the use of the words “High Court” in section 37 of the N.D.P.S Act.

32. Acceptance of the argument that the High Court's power to grant bail is limited by the circumstances set out in section 37(1)(b) is to deprive the High Court of its jurisdiction established for over a century. A distinct and unequivocal enactment is required for the purpose of either adding to or taking from the jurisdiction of a superior Court of law. A strong leaning exists against construing a statute so as to cost or restrict the jurisdiction of the superior Courts. The jurisdiction of Superior Court is not taken away except by express words or necessary implication. It appears impossible to me to suppose that the Parliament can have intended under an enactment like this by the general words “the Court”, to effect so material change in the jurisdiction of the High Court exercised for over a century. The rationale of this rule of construction rests upon the reluctance of the Parliament to disturb the established state of law or to deny the subjects access to the seat of justice. Such a conclusion cannot be drawn in the absence of clear words.

33. There is another feature of this enactment which negatives the argument advanced by Mr. Gupte.

34. Section 37(2) goes on to explain that the two limits in section 37(1)(b) on the powers of “the Court” are “in addition to the limitations under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973…..on granting of bail”. Now therefore, the Parliament had in mind the limitations on the power to grant bail under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Naturally, therefore, it had on its contemplation those Courts whose authority under the Code of Criminal Procedure is subject to limitations in regard to the grant of bail. When the Parliament thought of limitations under the Criminal Procedure Code, it must be taken that the Parliament knew that there was only one Court whose authority to release accused on bail was fettered by limitations. It is the Magistrate's authority under section 437 of the Code of Criminal Procedure that is subject to limitations and not the High Court's. This is simple because the Courts referred to in section 439 do not suffer from any limitations on their power to release the accused on bail. In this context, it should be remembered that the N.D.P.S Act by its amendment in 1989 has substituted the Special Court as the Court of Remand and the Court taking cognizance which power is, under the Code of Criminal Procedure exercised by the Magistrate of the First Class. It is clear to me, therefore, that section 37(1) and 37(2) refer to the Court which suffers from limitations on their power to release on bail. Since the High Court's power under section 437 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not subject to any limitations, the words “the Court” do not include the High Court.

35. The Special Court exercises the powers which the Magistrate under section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure exercises in respect of the persons produced before it. A Special Court is not only a trial Court but also the Court which exercises the functions similar to those of the Magistrate, such, as remand of, the accused, granting the bail, taking cognizance of the crime and so on. The Legislature, aware of this special function which the Special Court performs, realised that the Special Court must also exercise the powers of granting bail in the manner a Magistrate does under section 437 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. A logical step which the Legislature took was to enact section 37 of the N.D.P.S Act and curtail the powers of the Special Court in the matter of grant of bail. Although the Special Court generally exercises the powers of the Sessions Court, its power to grant bail has been so curtailed by section 37(1)(b)(i) and (ii) that it no longer enjoys the power to grant bail under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Therefore, in reading section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, so far as the N.N.P.S Act is concerned, the words “or. Court of Sessions” shall be deemed to have been omitted. Thus, section 439 retains the unfettered power of the High Court to grant bail in all cases including the cases under the N.D.P.S Act. However, having regard to section 37 and the constitution of the Special Court as the trial Court, the wide power possessed by a Court of Sessions under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure must be construed to have been taken away from that Court in cases arising out of the N.N.P.S Act.

36. Section 36A of the N.D.P.S Act makes it clear that nothing contained in “this section” shall affect the special powers of the High Court regarding bail under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973”. The abundant caution exercised by the Parliament in saving the High Court's power under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure assures to the accused the continued access to the seat of justice but section 36A(3) has employed the words “anything contained in this Act” or anything contained in section 37”. it is, therefore, urged on behalf of the prosecution that application of section 37 of the High Court is not excluded.

37. The argument stems from a misreading of the scope of sections 36 and 26A of the N.D.P.S Act Section 36A, inter alia, empowers the Special Court to exercise, in relation to the person in custody forwarded to it by the Magistrate, the same powers which a Magistrate may, exercise under section 167 of the code of Criminal. Procedure. The Magistrate and therefore the Special Court has the power to authorise the detantion of, the accused in custody. The Special Court in exercise, of its power under section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure may authorise such detention in custody. The Parliament, thought it necessary to caution that such detention by the Special Court shall not be construed as limiting the High Court's power under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is in this context that the words “nothing in this section” have been used in section 36A(3) of the N.D.P.S Act. The perspective of the words “in this section” will be clear when one considers the exercise of the power of detention under section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. At the stage where the Special Court remands the accused into custody the High Court may, in exercise of its power under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, release the accused on bail. The question of releasing the accused on bail arises only when the Special Court authorises his detention before the trial. Therefore, it follows that section 36A(3) deliberately, advisedly and rightly employs the words “nothing contained in this section”. Section 37 limits the powers of the Special Court to grant bail in the circumstances stated therein. The legislature by the very nature of its functions could not have foreseen all the cases which fall outside the categories stated in section 31(1)(b) of the N.D.S.P Act. The Special Court will naturally authorise the detention of the accused whose case falls outside the limits of section 37(1)(b). If it releases the accused on bail on being satisfied that there are no reasonable grounds for believing that he is guilty, there is no question of exercising powers under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The only place where the Parliament could have enacted the saving of the High Court's power under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is section 36A. There is nothing in the words “in this section” which limits the High Court's power under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the considerations specified in section 37(b) of the N.D.P.S Act.

38. My conclusion is that the High Court's power to release the accused suspected of having committed an offence under the N.D.P.S Act is not limited by section 37 of this act but is governed by section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The summary of the reasons for this conclusion is as under:—

“The Court” referred to in section 37 of the N.D.P.S Act, being a legislative substitute for the “Magistrate of the First Class” occuring in the repealed section 36 is not intended to include the High Court Secondly, the Parliament has identified the Special Court with the Court of the Magistrate whose power to grant bail is restricted under section 437 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The restriction of the power of release on bail created by section 37 of the N.D.P.S Act being similar to that under section 437 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Parliament did not intend to include High Court within the words “Special Court”. Thirdly, section 37(2) of the N.D.P.S Act has conceived the limitations on granting bail specified in section 37(1)(b), as “in addition to the limitations under the Code of Criminal Procedure”. Therefore, in the Parliaments conception, “the Court” is the Court whose power to grant bail is limited by the Code of Criminal Procedure. The High Court, not being a Court of such restricted power to grant bail, is not “the Court” conceived by section 37 of the N.D.P.S Act. Fourthly, the construction of the words “the Court” used in section 37 of the N.D.P.S Act deprives the High Court of its established jurisdiction. There are no words in the N.D.P.S Act which bring out the intention to take away the jurisdiction of the High Court under section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure.

39. VII.ORDER

17. (i) For all these reasons, “the application is allowed. The applicants shall be released on bail in the sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- each with one surety each. The applicants are at liberty to deposit cash amount in lieu of surety bonds. They shall deposit their passports with the concerned officer.

(ii) The applicant shall report at the Sessions Court of Bombay every Monday.

(iii) The application for stay of this Order and leave to the Supreme Court is rejected.

Application allowed.