9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Parameters for the grant of bail under Section 37 of the NDPS Act. 2. Worth of evidence of 'stock witnesses.' 3. Conviction under Section 21(c) of the NDPS Act based solely on the confession of the accused before an officer of the Narcotics Control Bureau. Detailed Analysis: Parameters for the Grant of Bail under Section 37 of the NDPS Act: Section 37 of the NDPS Act mandates that an accused should not be released on bail unless two conditions are met: (1) the Public Prosecutor has had an opportunity to oppose the bail application, and (2) the court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of the offense and is not likely to commit any offense while on bail. The Supreme Court in *Customs, New Delhi v. Ahmadalieva Nodira* explained that "reasonable grounds" mean something more than prima facie grounds and require substantial probable causes for believing that the accused is not guilty. Additionally, the Supreme Court in *Ranjit Singh Brahmajeet Singh Sharma* emphasized that the restrictions on granting bail should not be pushed too far and that the court must consider the probability of the accused not being ultimately convicted based on broad probabilities rather than meticulously weighing the evidence. Worth of Evidence of 'Stock Witnesses': The judgment highlights that the evidence of 'stock witnesses' is essentially worthless. The improbability of the same individuals being chance witnesses to multiple crimes at different times and places casts significant doubt on their credibility. The court referred to the Supreme Court's observations in *Prem Chand (Paniwala)*, which condemned the use of such witnesses as it undermines the integrity of the judicial process. In the present case, the two witnesses, Ravi and Charan Singh, had been used repeatedly by the prosecution in different cases, making their presence and the alleged recovery suspect. The court concluded that the presence of these 'stock witnesses' and the recovery itself are doubtful, thus diminishing the credibility of the prosecution's case. Conviction under Section 21(c) of the NDPS Act Based Solely on the Confession of the Accused: Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, states that confessions made to police officers are inadmissible. However, confessions made to officers who are not classified as police officers under the NDPS Act can be admissible if they are voluntary. The Supreme Court in *Raj Kumar Karwal v. Union of India* held that officers of the NCB are not police officers within the meaning of Section 25 of the Evidence Act, making confessions to them admissible. The court in *M. Prabhulal* further held that voluntary confessions made under Section 67 of the NDPS Act could be the basis for conviction if they are credible and unimpeached. In the present case, the petitioner's confession would need to be shown as voluntary and credible to be used as the sole basis for conviction. Conclusion: The court, considering the arguments and the legal standards, found that the petitioner might not be ultimately convicted due to the doubtful credibility of the 'stock witnesses' and the inconsistencies in the recovery and sample descriptions. The petitioner was granted bail as the prosecution did not dispute his lack of involvement in other criminal cases, satisfying the twin conditions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act. The petitioner was directed to be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond and surety. The court clarified that the views expressed are tentative and should not influence the trial's merits.
|
