Illegal detention and NDPS bail powers: coerced statements need strong corroboration, and High Court jurisdiction remains preserved.

Illegal detention and custodial assault rendered the applicants' statements unreliable for bail purposes, because restraint beyond the recorded arrest time, denial of legal access, and medical signs of injury showed coercive and unlawful detention; without strong independent corroboration, those statements could not justify continued custody. Section 37 of the NDPS Act was also construed as directed to the Special Court as the trial court, not as taking away the High Court's established bail jurisdiction under Section 439 CrPC. The commentary therefore states that statutory bail restrictions will not oust High Court power absent clear legislative words, and that bail may be granted despite the restrictions applicable to the Special Court.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the applicants' statements, including confessional statements, were rendered unreliable for bail purposes on account of illegal detention and custodial assault; (ii) whether Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 curtailed the High Court's power to grant bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Issue (i): Whether the applicants' statements, including confessional statements, were rendered unreliable for bail purposes on account of illegal detention and custodial assault.

Analysis: The applicants were shown to have been kept in custody for interrogation beyond the recorded arrest time, denied effective access to legal assistance, and medically found to have injuries and tenderness consistent with assault. The Court held that such restraint on liberty amounted to arrest and that detention for interrogation, when accompanied by physical coercion, was unlawful. It further held that statements obtained in such circumstances were tainted by violence and illegality, and that, at the stage of bail, the Court must assess whether the prosecution material was credible enough to support a reasonably certain conviction. As the only corroboration suggested was the statement of a co-accused, and the statements of the applicants were not shown to be voluntary and complete, they could not be treated as dependable material for refusing bail.

Conclusion: The applicants' statements were held to be tainted by illegal detention and assault and, without strong independent corroboration, were insufficient to justify continued custody.

Issue (ii): Whether Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 curtailed the High Court's power to grant bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Analysis: The Court construed the expression "the Court" in Section 37 as referring to the Special Court functioning as the trial court and not to the High Court. It relied on the statutory scheme created by the 1989 amendment, under which the Special Court replaced the Magistrate as the court of trial and was subject to bail restrictions similar to those applicable to a Magistrate under the Code of Criminal Procedure, while the High Court's special bail power was expressly preserved by Section 36A(3). The Court held that the Act contained no clear words taking away the High Court's established jurisdiction under Section 439, and that such a curtailment could not be inferred by general language.

Conclusion: Section 37 was held not to limit the High Court's power to grant bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Final Conclusion: The bail application succeeded, and the Court upheld its jurisdiction to grant bail in NDPS cases notwithstanding the restrictions applicable to the Special Court.

Ratio Decidendi: A statutory restriction on bail powers will not be read as ousting the High Court's jurisdiction unless the legislature uses clear words, and statements obtained through illegal detention and custodial assault are too tainted to be treated as reliable bail-denying material without strong independent corroboration.

---