2005 (4) TMI 634 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues:
1. Bail application based on recovery of contraband from co-accused.
2. Admissibility of secret information in the case.
3. Interpretation of Section 37 of the NDPS Act.
4. Consideration of past judicial decisions on similar circumstances for granting bail.

Analysis:

1. The petitioner's counsel argued that no recovery was made from the petitioner, but contraband was allegedly found on the co-accused. Citing past cases, it was emphasized that without evidence linking the petitioner to the contraband, bail should be granted. The court noted that the recovery from the co-accused alone does not establish the petitioner's guilt.

2. The defense relied on legal precedents to challenge the admissibility of secret information without the informant's examination. Referring to a Supreme Court case, it was highlighted that such information is inadmissible unless the informant is examined as a witness.

3. The State contended that Section 37 of the NDPS Act applied due to the recovery of contraband. However, the court reasoned that without concrete evidence linking the petitioner to the contraband, the application of Section 37 was not straightforward. The court emphasized the lack of admissible evidence connecting the petitioner to the recovered contraband.

4. Past judicial decisions were crucial in determining the petitioner's bail eligibility. Citing cases where recovery from co-accused did not lead to the accused's guilt, the court found reasonable grounds to believe the petitioner was not involved in the offense. Considering the petitioner's clean record and no likelihood of reoffending, bail was granted upon furnishing a personal bond.

In conclusion, the court granted bail to the petitioner based on the lack of evidence linking them to the recovered contraband, the inadmissibility of secret information without the informant's examination, and the absence of criminal antecedents. The judgment underscored the importance of substantive evidence in establishing guilt and the need for a fair assessment of each case for bail consideration.