2022 (7) TMI 871 - SC - Indian Laws

Grant of post-arrest bail - illegal selling and purchasing the said tablets and capsules - restricted goods or not - retraction of statements - Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - HELD THAT - It is evident from a plain reading of the non-obstante clause inserted in sub-section (1) and the conditions imposed in sub-section (2) of Section 37 that there are certain restrictions placed on the power of the Court when granting bail to a person accused of having committed an offence under the NDPS Act. Not only are the limitations imposed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to be kept in mind, the restrictions placed under clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 37 are also to be factored in. The conditions imposed in subsection (1) of Section 37 is that (i) the Public Prosecutor ought to be given an opportunity to oppose the application moved by an accused person for release and (ii) if such an application is opposed, then the Court must be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the person accused is not guilty of such an offence. Additionally, the Court must be satisfied that the accused person is unlikely to commit any offence while on bail - The expression reasonable grounds used in clause (b) of Sub-Section (1) of Section 37 would mean credible, plausible and grounds for the Court to believe that the accused person is not guilty of the alleged offence. For arriving at any such conclusion, such facts and circumstances must exist in a case that can persuade the Court to believe that the accused person would not have committed such an offence. Dove-tailed with the aforesaid satisfaction is an additional consideration that the accused person is unlikely to commit any offence while on bail. Coming back to the facts of the instant case, the learned Single Judge of the High Court cannot be faulted for holding that the appellant- NCB could not have relied on the confessional statements of the respondent and the other co-accused recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act in the light of law laid down by a Three Judges Bench of this Court in TOFAN SINGH VERSUS STATE OF TAMIL NADU 2020 (11) TMI 55 - SUPREME COURT , wherein as per the majority decision, a confessional statement recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act has been held to be inadmissible in the trial of an offence under the NDPS Act. Therefore, the admissions made by the respondent while in custody to the effect that he had illegally traded in narcotic drugs, will have to be kept aside. However, this was not the only material that the appellant- NCB had relied on to oppose the bail application filed by the respondent. Even dehors the confessional statement of the respondent and the other co-accused recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, which were subsequently retracted by them, the other circumstantial evidence brought on record by the appellant-NCB ought to have dissuaded the High Court from exercising its discretion in favour of the respondent and concluding that there were reasonable grounds to justify that he was not guilty of such an offence under the NDPS Act - the narrow parameters of bail available under Section 37 of the Act, have not been satisfied in the facts of the instant case. At this stage, it is not safe to conclude that the respondent has successfully demonstrated that there are reasonable grounds to believe that he is not guilty of the offence alleged against him, for him to have been admitted to bail. The length of the period of his custody or the fact that the charge-sheet has been filed and the trial has commenced are by themselves not considerations that can be treated as persuasive grounds for granting relief to the respondent under Section 37 of the NDPS Act. The impugned order releasing the respondent on post-arrest bail, is quashed and set aside - Appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of granting post-arrest bail under NDPS Act.
2. Admissibility of confessional statements under Section 67 of NDPS Act.
3. Application of Section 37 of NDPS Act in granting bail.
4. Evaluation of circumstantial evidence.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of granting post-arrest bail under NDPS Act:
The appellant-NCB challenged the High Court's decision granting post-arrest bail to the respondent-accused under Sections 8/22 and 29 of the NDPS Act. The prosecution argued that the High Court erred in granting bail, given the severity of the offense and the involvement of commercial quantities of narcotic drugs. Section 37 of the NDPS Act imposes stringent conditions for bail, which the High Court allegedly overlooked.

2. Admissibility of confessional statements under Section 67 of NDPS Act:
The respondent's confessional statements made under Section 67 of the NDPS Act were deemed inadmissible based on the precedent set by the Supreme Court in Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu. The High Court's decision to grant bail was influenced by this ruling, as the confessions were retracted and considered inadmissible for trial purposes.

3. Application of Section 37 of NDPS Act in granting bail:
Section 37 of the NDPS Act stipulates that bail can only be granted if the court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe the accused is not guilty and is unlikely to commit any offense while on bail. The Supreme Court emphasized that "reasonable grounds" mean credible and plausible reasons, requiring substantial probable causes. The High Court's liberal approach in granting bail was criticized for not adhering to these stringent conditions.

4. Evaluation of circumstantial evidence:
Despite the inadmissibility of confessional statements, the appellant-NCB presented other circumstantial evidence, such as the respondent's disclosures leading to the seizure of a large quantity of drugs from the co-accused's godown and the CDR details showing communication between the accused parties. The Supreme Court held that this evidence should have dissuaded the High Court from granting bail, as it indicated the respondent's involvement in the offense.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court concluded that the High Court erred in granting bail by not properly applying the stringent conditions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act and by overlooking significant circumstantial evidence. The appeals were allowed, the High Court's order was quashed, and the respondent's bail was canceled, directing immediate custody.