2006 (5) TMI 553 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues: Alleged recovery linking co-accused with the petitioner under NDPS Act, admissibility of secret information, bail application.

Issue 1: Alleged recovery linking co-accused with the petitioner under NDPS Act
The petitioner, in custody since 13.07.2005, challenged the alleged recovery of two polythene bags from the co-accused containing diacetylmorphine and other substances. The petitioner's counsel argued that the recovery from the co-accused cannot be linked to the petitioner solely based on secret information without additional evidence. Citing the Supreme Court's decision in Amarsingh Ramjibhai Barot v. State of Gujarat, the counsel emphasized the need for evidence connecting individuals for the application of Section 29 of the NDPS Act. Referring to a previous court decision, it was highlighted that mere secret information without the informant being named or produced as a witness is insufficient to establish a case under Section 29. The court concluded that without concrete evidence linking the petitioner to the recovery, even if Section 37 of the NDPS Act applies, there are reasonable grounds to believe the petitioner's innocence.

Issue 2: Admissibility of secret information
The petitioner's counsel relied on the decision in N. Ayyappan v. State to argue that secret information is inadmissible unless the provider of such information is examined in court. The State, while acknowledging the lack of recovery from the petitioner, prosecuted the petitioner under Section 21 read with Section 29 of the NDPS Act based on the recovery from the co-accused. However, the State failed to present any evidence beyond the secret information to establish a direct link between the petitioner and the recovery from the co-accused. Considering the absence of substantial evidence and the precedents discussed, the court found the petitioner entitled to bail after being in custody for a significant period.

Issue 3: Bail application
After a thorough analysis of the arguments presented by both parties, the court granted bail to the petitioner. The court directed the petitioner's release on bail upon furnishing a personal bond of &8377;25,000 with two sureties of the same amount to the satisfaction of the concerned court. The bail application was disposed of accordingly, taking into account the lack of substantial evidence linking the petitioner directly to the alleged recovery from the co-accused.