Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – ss.27A, 37, and 21(b)/29 – Rigours of provisions of s.37 relating to grant of bail – Inapplicability – Cocaine, a contraband drug, recovered from a motorcar with three occupants – Respondent accused of offences u/ss.21(b)/29/27A – Accusation against respondent pertaining to offence u/s. 27A that he along with other co-accused hatched criminal conspiracy to implicate two occupants of the motorcar under the NDPS Act out of personal grudge – Prosecution alleged that respondent got the contraband procured after making payment for the same and then got it planted in the vehicle occupied by the three persons – Having been arrested, the respondent filed bail application – Trial Court rejected the bail application – Respondent approached High Court – High Court held that the restriction of s.37 would not apply to this case and the respondent, who was in custody, qualified for grant of bail with stringent conditions – On appeal, held: The story of planting of contraband in the vehicle in question by some third person could only be disbelieved, for being squarely contrary to the initial case of the prosecution, as stated in the written complaint – Once the veracity of prosecution case against the respondent is in serious doubt, further analysis on the other factors about financing the drug trafficking and harbouring of offender need not be undertaken because, when story of planting of contraband is removed out of consideration, all other factors by which respondent was sought to be connected with such alleged planting could only be regarded as false and fanciful, at least at this stage – In the facts and circumstances, the High Court rightly found that applicability of s.27A was seriously questionable in this case – That being the position; and there being otherwise no recovery from the respondent and the quantity in question being also intermediate quantity, the rigours of s.37 do not apply to the present case – The past history of the respondent and even his conduct in relation to the processes concerning the present case give rise to a few questions but, the strong countervailing factor in the present case is the prima facie indication that he was being sought to be framed by concoctions and baseless stories – Another factor noticeable was that respondent was not involved in any NDPS Act case or any akin offence in the past – Further, nothing of any contraband article was recovered from respondent or from any place under his exclusive control – This factor further adds on to the doubt as to whether the respondent had at all been indulgent in narcotics or any contraband – That being the position, the view as taken by the High Court cannot be said to be an altogether unacceptable or impossible view of the matter – Also, apart from the stringent conditions already imposed by the High Court, it is always open for the prosecution to seek imposition of any further condition or even to seek cancellation of the bail granted to the respondent, in case of any fault on his part in due adherence to the conditions already imposed – No reason for interference in order passed by High Court granting bail to the respondent with specific conditions – Bail.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD:1. The contention on the part of the respondent cannot be ignored that if statements of two witnesses were recorded on 27.02.2021 and 28.02.2021, there was no material with the investigating agency to summon him on 22.02.2021. This is apart from the fact that the statements of the said two witnesses, prima facie give rise to some reasonable questions, as to why were they kept as companions while the respondent and a coaccused purportedly carried out the alleged clandestine? deals with exchange of contraband and the currency? [Para 14.1][559F-H]
2.1. According to the prosecution, the FIR in question for offences under Sections 21(b) and 29 NDPS Act came to be registered on the basis of a written complaint dated 19.02.2021. This complaint dated 19.02.2021 is an admitted document of the appellant and is rather the foundation of the entire matter. A few passages of the said written complaint, disclose as to what exactly transpired in detaining the vehicle and as to how the contraband was recovered. [Para 16][560-E-G]
2.2. Two major aspects emerge therefrom: one, that before interception, the motorcar in question was in motion and was moving from west to east direction, which was detained by police with the help of other raiding team members; and second, that during search, the occupants of motorcar pointed towards two specific places inside the vehicle where the contraband drug/cocaine was placed in a concealed manner i.e., rear zip cover of the left front seat and beneath the driver’s seat. Both these assertions, when examined with reference to the alleged statements of the three motorcar-occupants, with supplementary written submissions, their incompatibility and contradiction strikingly come to the fore. According to the said statements, a few minutes before the alleged ‘encircling’ of motorcar by the raiding team, the said occupants had come out of the vehicle and Amrit Raj Singh (co accused) remained inside for changing his clothes; and he spent a minimum of 10 to 15 minutes inside the vehicle when these three persons allegedly saw him bending down and doing something on the floor of the car! The story, as sought to be suggested in these statements, contradicts the fundamental facts stated in the initial complaint that the search and raiding team persons had in fact stopped and detained the moving vehicle; and that the occupants of motorcar pointed towards the specific places in the vehicle where the contraband items were concealed. [Para 16.1][16.1-G-H, A-C]
3. When the assertions of the SI lodging the written complaint after search of the vehicle and seizure of contraband on 19.02.2021 are pitted against the alleged statements of the three occupants of the vehicle, the question does arise as to which of the two contradictory versions is to be accepted at this stage? In view of this Court, at the present stage and on prima facie consideration of the matter, the only logical approach could be to proceed on the basis of the version of the SI as given in the written complaint because, it is not the case of the appellant that the version in the written complaint is not correct. In this view of the matter, the very edifice of the prosecution case against the respondent crumbles down and falls flat. Putting it differently, the story of planting of contraband in the vehicle in question by some third person could only be disbelieved, for being squarely contrary to the initial case of the prosecution, as stated in the written complaint. [Para 16.2][562-C-F]
4. Once the veracity of prosecution case against the respondent is in serious doubt, further analysis on the other factors about financing the drug trafficking and harbouring of offender need not be undertaken because, when the story of planting of contraband is removed out of consideration, all other factors by which respondent is sought to be connected with such alleged planting could only be regarded as false and fanciful, at least at this stage. In the given set of facts and circumstances, the High Court has rightly found that applicability of Section 27A NDPS Act is seriously questionable in this case. That being the position; and there being otherwise no recovery from the respondent and the quantity in question being also intermediate quantity, the rigours of Section 37 NDPS Act do not apply to the present case. [Paras 16.3 and 16.4][562-F-H; 563-A]
5. The past history of the respondent and even his conduct in relation to the processes concerning the present case give rise to a few questions but, the strong countervailing factor in the present case is the prima facie indication that he is being sought to be framed by concoctions and baseless stories. Another factor noticeable is that the respondent has not been involved in any NDPS Act case or any akin offence in the past. It is noticed from the material placed on record that nothing of any contraband article has been recovered from the respondent or from any place under his exclusive control. This factor further adds on to the doubt as to whether the respondent had at all been indulgent in narcotics or any contraband? That being the position, the view as taken by the High Court cannot be said to be an altogether unacceptable or impossible view of the matter. Moreover, it cannot be said that the respondent was consciously seeking to abscond on 23.02.2021 merely because he was found in the night at Purba Bardhaman and not at Kolkata. In any case, the aspect relating to tendency to flee has been duly taken care of with the conditions as imposed by the High Court. Apart from the stringent conditions already imposed by the High Court, it is always open for the prosecution to seek imposition of any further condition or even to seek cancellation of the bail granted to the respondent, in case of any fault on his part in due adherence to the conditions already imposed. In view of the above, there is no reason to consider interference in the order passed by the High Court granting bail to the respondent with specific conditions. [Paras
18.1 and 19][564-B-G]
State of West Bengal v. Rakesh Kumar Singh 2015 SCC OnLine Cal 1338; Union of India through Narcotics Control Bureau, Lucknow v. Md. Nawaz Khan 2021 SCC OnLine SC 782; State of Kerala & Ors. v. Rajesh & Ors. (2020) 12 SCC 122 : [2020] 3 SCR 348; Rhea Chakraborty v. Union of India & Anr. 2020 SCC
OnLine Bom 990; State of U.P. v. Amarmani Tripathi (2005) 8 SCC 21 : [2005] 3 Suppl. SCR 454; Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashish Chaterjee & Anr. (2010) 14 SCC 496 : [2010] 12 SCR 1165; State of West Bengal v. Rakesh Kumar Singh (2015) SCC OnLine Cal 1338 – 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.