Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2021 (8) TMI HC This

  • Login
  • Cases Cited
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2021 (8) TMI 1177 - HC - Indian Laws


Issues:
Regular bail application under Sections 22/23/29 NDPS Act - Refugee status defense - Admissibility of statement under Section 67 NDPS Act - Parity with co-accused - Recovery of contraband tablets - CCTV footage evidence - Mirror image of petitioner's phone - Recovery of guarantee cards - Commercial quantity of contraband - Legally admissible evidence for complicity.

Analysis:
The petitioner, a Syrian national refugee, sought regular bail in a drug case where no recovery was made from him. His defense included being falsely implicated and the inadmissibility of the statement under Section 67 NDPS Act based on the Toofan Singh case precedent. The petitioner's inability to understand Hindi or English during statement recording was highlighted, along with the bail granted to a co-accused. However, the court noted substantive evidence like CCTV footage linking the petitioner to the contraband.

The prosecution's case involved the recovery of a significant quantity of contraband tablets from another individual, Erbil Han, who implicated the petitioner. The petitioner's presence in the market, along with evidence from CCTV footage and a mirror image of his phone, connected him to the illegal trafficking. The recovery of guarantee cards and the absence of invoices did not negate the evidence against the petitioner.

The court rejected the petitioner's claim for bail due to his involvement in trafficking a commercial quantity of contraband, supported by legally admissible evidence like CCTV footage, phone photos, and the recovery of guarantee cards. The court differentiated the petitioner's case from that of a co-accused based on the manufacturing and sale timeline of the contraband tablets. The court emphasized the presence of substantive evidence against the petitioner beyond the statements under Section 67 NDPS Act, leading to the dismissal of the bail application.

In conclusion, the court dismissed the petitioner's bail application based on the substantial evidence connecting him to the trafficking of contraband tablets, despite his refugee status and defense arguments regarding the admissibility of statements and parity with a co-accused. The court's decision was grounded in the presence of legally admissible evidence and the commercial quantity of contraband involved in the case.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates