9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (1) TMI 1366X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Act, it appears, prima facie, that no substantial material was available with the prosecution at the time of arrest to connect the respondents with the allegations levelled against them of indulging in drug trafficking. It has not been denied by the prosecution that except for the respondent in SLP (Crl.) No. 1569/2021, none of the other respondents were found to be in possession of commercial quantities of psychotropic substances, as contemplated under the NDPS Act. It has been held in clear terms in TOFAN SINGH VERSUS STATE OF TAMIL NADU [ 2020 (11) TMI 55 - SUPREME COURT ] , that a confessional statement recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act will remain inadmissible in the trial of an offence under the NDPS Act. In the teeth of the aforesaid decision, the arrests made by the petitioner-NCB, on the basis of the confession/voluntary statements of the respondents or the co-accused under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, cannot form the basis for overturning the impugned orders releasing them on bail. The evidence brought before us against Mohammed Afzal [A-2], respondent in SLP (Crl.) No. 1569/2021, subject matter of the second case i.e., NCB Case FN No. 48/01/07/2019/BZU, who was g ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by an order dated 16th September, 2019 passed in Criminal Leave Petition No. 4462/2019 (subject matter of SLP(Crl.) Diary No. 22702/2020), order dated 14th January, 2020 passed in Criminal Leave Petition No. 8603/2019 (subject matter of SLP (Crl.) No. 1454/2021), order dated 16th January, 2020 passed in Criminal Petition No. 7861/2019 (subject matter of SLP (Crl.) No. 1465/2021), order dated 19th December, 2019 passed in Criminal Petition No. 7624/2019 c/w Criminal Petition No. 6609/2019 (subject matter of SLP (Crl.) Nos. 1773-1774/2021), order dated 08th January, 2020 passed in Criminal Petition No. 7714/2019 (subject matter of SLP (Crl.) No. 1569/2021) and order dated 20th January, 2020 passed in Criminal Petition No. 7897/2019 (subject matter of SLP (Crl.) No. 2080/2021). By the aforesaid orders, the High Court of Karnataka has released the respondents on bail for the offences punishable under Sections 8(c), 8A read with Sections 20(b), 21, 22, 27A, 27B, 28 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 [In short 'NDPS Act'] , as the case may be. 2. The facts leading to registering of the aforesaid cases against the respondents are that on 22nd March, 2019, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... accused were apprehended in the parking area of Bengaluru Airport on 15th June, 2019. It is stated that Khushboo Sharma was found to be in possession of a black bag that when searched, revealed 510 grams of Methamphetamine concealed in sanitary napkins. Further, when A-1 and A-2 were taken by the Department to a tenanted flat occupied by them, NCB officers found huge quantities of drugs stashed there, namely, 330 Grams of Methamphetamine, 13.680 Kgs of Hashish, 2.850 Kgs of Hashish Oil, 9.050 Kgs of Ganja and 4586 Capsules of Lyrica. 5. The specific allegations levelled against Mohammed Afzal [A-2], respondent in SLP (Crl.) No. 1569/2021 who was granted bail vide order dated 08th January, 2020 in the second case registered by the NCB, is that apart from his own inculpatory statement and the confessional statement of the co-accused, Abu Thahir @ Abdu [A-1] recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, large quantity of drugs were seized at his tenanted premises and from the hand bag of the co-accused, Khushboo Sharma also found to be in his possession at the Airport, which concealed drugs. 6. As for Munees Kavil [A-5], respondent in Criminal Petition No. 7897/2019 who was granted ba ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es to show that the said respondents were constantly in touch with each other and with A-1 and A-2 on the date of the seizure. The attention of this Court was also drawn to the fact that the antecedents of A-5, A-6 and A-8 in the first case and A-2 and A-5 in the second case are not clean. 9. Having gone through the records alongwith the tabulated statement of the respondents submitted on behalf of the petitioner-NCB and on carefully perusing the impugned orders passed in each case, it emerges that except for the voluntary statements of A-1 and A-2 in the first case and that of the respondents themselves recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, it appears, prima facie, that no substantial material was available with the prosecution at the time of arrest to connect the respondents with the allegations levelled against them of indulging in drug trafficking. It has not been denied by the prosecution that except for the respondent in SLP (Crl.) No. 1569/2021, none of the other respondents were found to be in possession of commercial quantities of psychotropic substances, as contemplated under the NDPS Act. 10. It has been held in clear terms in Tofan Singh Vs. State of Tamil Nadu [ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
