Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – ss. 8, 22, 29, 37 and 67 – Post-arrest bail – Not granted – Respondent made statement u/s. 67 NDPS Act and disclosed that he was illegally selling and purchasing the illegal drugs from ‘PJ’ – Based on it, a search was conducted by NCB at the premise of co-accused-‘PJ’ and drugs covered under NDPS were recovered in huge quantities – Respondent was taken into custody – Respondent made application for bail before Special Judge, NDPS which was rejected – High Court granted bail to respondent u/s 439 of Cr.PC – NCB filed an appeal before the Supreme Court and submitted that in light of s.37 of NDPS Act, the High Court erred in granting bail to the respondent – Respondent contended that any confessional statement recorded u/s 67 NDPS Act is inadmissible in trial of offence under the said Act – Held: In view of the Tofan Singh case, the admissions made by respondent u/s. 67 NDPS Act is inadmissible in the trial under the NDPS Act – However, the disclosure statement made by the respondent to NCB which led to the searching of premises of coaccused-‘PJ’ and recovery of huge amount of illicit drugs and the arrest of ‘PJ’, which was based on respondent’s information shows that they were in touch with each other – As per s.37 of NDPS Act, only if the condition of reasonable grounds for believing that the person accused is not guilty of such an offence is satisfied, then only bail can be granted – Respondent have failed to demonstrate the same – Condition u/s. 37 NDPS Act was not satisfied – Order of post-arrest bail quashed and set aside – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.439.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD:1. The Single Judge of the High Court cannot be faulted for holding that the appellant NCB could not have relied on the confessional statements of the respondent and the other co-accused recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act in the light of law laid down by a Three Judges Bench of this Court in Tofan Singh case, wherein as per the majority decision, a confessional statement recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act has been held to be inadmissible in the trial of an offence under the NDPS Act. Therefore, the admissions made by the respondent while in custody to the effect that he had illegally traded in narcotic drugs, will have to be kept aside. However, this was not the only material that the appellant-NCB had relied on to oppose the bail application filed by the respondent. The appellant-NCB had specifically stated that it was the disclosures made by the respondent that had led the NCB team to arrive at and raid the godown of the co-accused, ‘PJ’ which resulted in the recovery of a large haul of different psychotropic substances in the form of tablets, injections and syrups. Counsel for the appellant-NCB had also pointed out that it was the respondent who had disclosed the address and location of the co-accused, ‘PJ’ who was arrested later on and the CDR details of the mobile phones of all co-accused including the respondent herein showed that they were in touch with each other. [Para 16][608-G-H; 609A-C]
2. Even dehors the confessional statement of the respondent and the other co-accused recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, which were subsequently retracted by them, the other circumstantial evidence brought on record by the appellant-NCB ought to have dissuaded the High Court from exercising its discretion in favour of the respondent and concluding that there were reasonable grounds to justify that he was not guilty of such an offence under the NDPS Act. This Court was not persuaded by the submission made by counsel for the respondent and the observation made in the impugned order that since nothing was found from the possession of the respondent, he is not guilty of the offence for which he has been charged. Such an assumption would be premature at this stage. [Para 17][609-D-E]
3. The Court held that the narrow parameters of bail available under Section 37 of the Act, have not been satisfied in the facts of the instant case. At this stage, it was not safe to conclude that the respondent had successfully demonstrated that there were reasonable grounds to believe that he was not guilty of the offence alleged against him, for him to have been admitted to bail. The length of the period of his custody or the fact that the charge-sheet has been filed and the trial has commenced are by themselves not considerations that can be treated as persuasive grounds for granting relief to the respondent under Section 37 of the NDPS Act. [Para 18][609-F-G]
Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu 2020 SCC Online SC 882; Collector of Customs, New Delhi v.
Ahmadalieva Nodira (2004) 3 SCC 549 : [2004] 2 SCR 1092; State of Kerala and Others v. Rajesh and Others (2020) 12 SCC 122 : [2020] 3 SCR 348 – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.