9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (3) TMI 752 - HC - Indian LawsGrant of bail - Smuggling - Tramadol, which fall under contraband narcotic drugs - narcotic substances - retraction of statement made under Section 67 of NDPS Act - HELD THAT - In the case in hand, investigation is said to be complete. As per impugned order dated 21.07.2020 complaint/charge sheet has already been filed, however, besides confessional statement recorded under Section 67 of NDPS Act, no other material is forthcoming. Since no incriminating material was recovered at the instance of petitioner, this strengthens the view of this Court that petitioner is not likely to commit offence if released on bail. Moreover, nothing stops the prosecution to prove its case on merits during trial. In the aforesaid view of the case, requirements under Section 37 of NDPS Act are fulfilled. The petitioner is directed to be released forthwith on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of ₹ 25,000/-, and one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial court/duty magistrate subject to the condition imposed - petition allowed.
Issues Involved:
1. Petitioner's claim of false implication and innocence. 2. Compliance with legal procedures and validity of evidence under Section 67 of NDPS Act. 3. Evaluation of the trial court's decision to deny bail. 4. Applicability of Section 37 of NDPS Act concerning bail in cases involving commercial quantities of narcotics. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Petitioner's Claim of False Implication and Innocence: The petitioner asserted that he is a law-abiding citizen, running a legitimate business under a valid drug license, and maintained all necessary records. He claimed no contraband was recovered from his possession and alleged false implication in the case. The prosecution, however, presented a detailed account of the investigation, including the recovery of a large quantity of narcotic drugs and the petitioner's alleged involvement as indicated by co-accused statements. 2. Compliance with Legal Procedures and Validity of Evidence Under Section 67 of NDPS Act: The prosecution relied heavily on the statements recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, where the petitioner and co-accused admitted their involvement in the illegal trade of narcotic drugs. However, the petitioner retracted his statement at the first opportunity, challenging its admissibility. The Supreme Court's decision in Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu was cited, which held that statements recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act cannot be used as confessional statements in the trial. 3. Evaluation of the Trial Court's Decision to Deny Bail: The trial court denied bail, citing the connection between the petitioner and the recovered contraband through co-accused statements and mobile phone records. The trial court emphasized the twin conditions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, which require reasonable grounds to believe that the accused is not guilty and will not commit any offense while on bail. The trial court found no such grounds at that stage. 4. Applicability of Section 37 of NDPS Act Concerning Bail in Cases Involving Commercial Quantities of Narcotics: Section 37 of the NDPS Act imposes stringent conditions for granting bail in cases involving commercial quantities of narcotics. The High Court considered the Supreme Court's ruling in State of Kerala v. Rajesh, which emphasized the necessity of satisfying the conditions under Section 37 before granting bail. The High Court noted that no incriminating material was recovered from the petitioner's possession, and the confessional statements under Section 67 were inadmissible as per the Tofan Singh judgment. Thus, the High Court found reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioner was not likely to commit any offense if released on bail. Conclusion: The High Court allowed the bail petition, directing the petitioner to be released on furnishing a personal bond and surety. The decision was based on the lack of incriminating material directly linking the petitioner to the contraband and the inadmissibility of the Section 67 statements as confessional evidence. The court emphasized the need for the prosecution to prove its case on merits during the trial.
|
