2022 (10) TMI 1172 - SC - Indian Laws

Seeking grant of bail - contraband material weighing about 13 kgs. of morphine was found in a motor vehicle which was driven by co-accused named Md. Jakir Hussain - offences punishable under Sections 21(c) read with 29 of The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Whether the role played by said Md. Jakir Hussain could get connected with both the accused is a question? - HELD THAT - The answer to said question could be the statement recorded of Md. Nizam Uddin. The statement of Md. Jakir Hussain recorded under Section 67 of the Act has also named his owner accused Abdul Hai. We are conscious of the fact that the validity and scope of such statements under Section 67 has been pronounced upon by this Court in TOFAN SINGH VERSUS STATE OF TAMIL NADU 2020 (11) TMI 55 - SUPREME COURT . In STATE BY (NCB) BENGALURU VERSUS PALLULABID AHMAD ARIMUTTA ANR. ; UNION OF INDIA VERSUS MOHAMMED AFZAL; UNION OF INDIA NARCOTICS CONTROL BUREAU, BENGALURU VERSUS MOHAMMED AFZAL; STATE BY INTELLIGENCE OFFICER, NARCOTICS CONTROL BUREAU VERSUS MUNEES KAVIL PARAMABATH @ MUNEES KP; STATE OF KARNATAKA VERSUS MUNEES KAVIL PARAMABATH; STATE BY INTELLIGENCE OFFICER (NCB) BENGALURU ZONAL UNIT, BENGALURU VERSUS ABU THAHIR @ ABDU ETC. 2022 (1) TMI 1366 - SUPREME COURT , the rigour of law lay down by this Court in Tofan Singh was held to be applicable even at the stage of grant of bail. Going by the circumstances on record, at this stage, on the strength of the statement of Md. Nizam Uddin, though allegedly retracted later, the matter stands on a different footing. In the face of the mandate of Section 37 of the Act, the High Court could not and ought not to have released the accused on bail. These appeals are allowed, and the view taken by the High Court set aside and both the appellants are directed to be taken in custody forthwith.

Summary

Issues:
Grant of bail to accused under NDPS Act based on evidence and statements recorded during investigation.

Analysis:
The Supreme Court heard an appeal challenging the judgment of the Gauhati High Court granting bail to two accused, Khalil Uddin and Md. Abdul Hai, in connection with a case under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. The case involved the seizure of 13 kgs of morphine from a vehicle driven by a co-accused, Md. Jakir Hussain. It was revealed during the investigation that the vehicle belonged to Md. Nizam Uddin, who had transferred custody to accused Md. Abdul Hai, with accused Md. Jakir Hussain being the driver. The contraband was intended for accused Khalil Uddin, the owner of a tea shop. The High Court granted bail to the accused after they had been in custody for about a year, prompting the appeal.

The Supreme Court noted that the crucial issue was whether the role of Md. Jakir Hussain could be linked to both accused individuals. The statement of Md. Nizam Uddin, along with the statement of Md. Jakir Hussain recorded under Section 67 of the Act, implicated accused Abdul Hai. Referring to previous judgments, the Court emphasized the importance of such statements even at the bail stage. Despite Md. Nizam Uddin's statement being retracted later, the Court found that, considering the provisions of Section 37 of the Act, the High Court erred in granting bail. Consequently, the Court allowed the appeals, overturned the High Court's decision, and ordered the immediate custody of both appellants.

Additionally, the Court directed the Trial Court to expedite the proceedings, especially since the charge-sheet had already been filed. The Trial Court was instructed to ensure the conclusion of the trial within six months from the date of the Supreme Court's order. This directive aimed to ensure a swift resolution of the case in light of the seriousness of the offenses under the NDPS Act.