2021 (12) TMI 613 - SC - Indian Laws

Seeking grant of bail - Smuggling - psychotropic substances - admissibility of confessional statement recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act - HELD THAT - The impugned order cancelling the bail granted in favour of Bharat Chaudhary A-4 , is not sustanabile in view of the fact that the records sought to be relied upon by the prosecution show that one test report dated 6th December, 2019, two test reports dated 17th December, 2019 and one test report dated 21st December, 2019 in respect of the sample pills/tablets drawn and sent for testing by the prosecuting agency conclude with a note appended by the Assistant Commercial Examiner at the foot of the reports stating that quantitative analysis of the samples could not be carried out for want of facilities . In the absence of any clarity so far on the quantitative analysis of the samples, the prosecution cannot be heard to state at this preliminary stage that the petitioners have been found to be in possession of commercial quantity of psychotropic subtances as contemplated under the NDPS Act. In the absence of any psychotropic substance found in the conscious possession of A-4, mere reliance on the statement made by A-1 to A-3 under Section 67 of the NDPS Act is too tenuous a ground to sustain the impugned order dated 15th July, 2021 - SLP disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
1. Bail granted to A-4 challenged due to reversal by High Court.
2. Seizure of tablets under NDPS Act, arrests, and bail orders.
3. Legal implications of confessional statements under NDPS Act.
4. High Court's criticism of Special Judge's bail decision.
5. Arguments for and against bail for A-1 and A-4.
6. Analysis of evidence, test reports, and nexus between accused.
7. Supreme Court's decision on bail for A-4 and A-1.

Issue 1: Bail granted to A-4 challenged due to reversal by High Court.
The Supreme Court addressed the challenge against the reversal of bail granted to A-4 by the High Court. The bail order was initially passed by the Special Judge, EC & NDPS Cases, Chennai, but was later cancelled by the High Court, leading to the appeal.

Issue 2: Seizure of tablets under NDPS Act, arrests, and bail orders.
The case involved the seizure of tablets described as psychotropic substances under the NDPS Act from various locations in Chennai. Arrests were made, including A-4, based on allegations of contravening NDPS Act provisions. Bail orders were granted and challenged, leading to the legal proceedings.

Issue 3: Legal implications of confessional statements under NDPS Act.
The judgment discussed the legal implications of confessional statements recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act. The Court considered the admissibility of such statements in light of previous rulings and their impact on bail decisions.

Issue 4: High Court's criticism of Special Judge's bail decision.
The High Court criticized the Special Judge for conducting a roving enquiry in granting bail to A-4. It emphasized the importance of evidence and test reports in determining bail eligibility, highlighting the need for a strong link between the accused.

Issue 5: Arguments for and against bail for A-1 and A-4.
Legal arguments were presented both for and against bail for A-1 and A-4. The defense highlighted lack of evidence, procedural irregularities, and reliance on confessional statements, while the prosecution emphasized the nexus between the accused and the presence of narcotic substances in seized tablets.

Issue 6: Analysis of evidence, test reports, and nexus between accused.
The judgment analyzed the evidence, including test reports, to determine the presence of narcotic substances and the alleged nexus between the accused. The Court scrutinized the reliability of the evidence and its impact on the bail decisions.

Issue 7: Supreme Court's decision on bail for A-4 and A-1.
After examining the arguments and evidence, the Supreme Court quashed the High Court's order cancelling bail for A-4. It reinstated the bail granted by the Special Judge. Additionally, considering the circumstances, the Court decided to release A-1 on bail, subject to trial court satisfaction, due to prolonged custody.

This detailed analysis covers the legal aspects, evidentiary considerations, and the final decision of the Supreme Court regarding the bail orders for the accused individuals involved in the case.