Retraction of Section 67 statements without independent corroboration was insufficient to deny bail under the NDPS Act.

Under the NDPS Act, Section 37 bail rigour was not met where the prosecution case depended mainly on Section 67 statements that were retracted and lacked independent corroboration. The Court treated such statements, especially when alleged to have been made under duress, as unsafe to rely on without supporting material, and noted that co-accused statements alone could not constitute substantive evidence against the petitioner. In the absence of recovery from the petitioner and with no reliable corroborative evidence, there were reasonable grounds to doubt guilt, so the statutory threshold for refusing bail was not satisfied and bail was granted.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to bail under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 despite the rigour of Section 37, where the prosecution case rested substantially on statements recorded under Section 67 and those statements were retracted and lacked independent corroboration.

Analysis: The Court noted that statements recorded under Section 67 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 may be relevant, but where they are in the nature of confessions, they require close scrutiny and, as a matter of prudence, independent corroboration. A retracted statement alleged to have been made under duress cannot safely be treated as sufficient, especially where the surrounding facts indicate custody, prompt allegation of coercion, and medical material suggesting injuries. The Court further held that the statement of co-accused could not, by itself, form substantive evidence against the petitioner. In the absence of recovery from the petitioner and in the absence of reliable corroborative material, the first limb of Section 37 was not satisfied.

Conclusion: The petitioner was held entitled to bail, as there were reasonable grounds to doubt his guilt on the material then available and the uncorroborated retracted statements could not justify continued detention.

Final Conclusion: Bail was granted because the prosecution case, as then presented, did not furnish adequate independent support for the alleged Section 67 statements, and the statutory threshold for denial of bail was not met.

Ratio Decidendi: A retracted confession under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 cannot, without independent corroboration, furnish a safe basis to deny bail where the statutory test requires reasonable grounds to believe that the accused is guilty.

---