NDPS bail, stock witnesses and Section 67 confessions: Section 37's twin conditions and voluntariness remain decisive.

Section 37 NDPS bail requires hearing the Public Prosecutor and satisfaction on two cumulative conditions: reasonable grounds to believe the accused is not guilty and is unlikely to reoffend while on bail, assessed on broad probabilities rather than meticulous proof. The commentary also notes that repeated use of the same alleged independent witnesses in multiple recoveries creates suspicion and materially weakens the prosecution case. It further explains that a statement recorded under Section 67 may be admissible if voluntary, but it can support conviction on its own only when its voluntariness and reliability are clear; otherwise, corroboration is needed. On the facts discussed, these features created doubt about the recovery and prosecution case.

---

---

Issues: (i) What are the parameters for grant of bail under Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985? (ii) What is the evidentiary worth of stock witnesses? (iii) Can a conviction under Section 21(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 be based solely on a confession recorded by an officer of the Narcotics Control Bureau?

Issue (i): What are the parameters for grant of bail under Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985?

Analysis: Bail in cases governed by Section 37 can be granted only after the Public Prosecutor is heard and the Court reaches satisfaction that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty and that he is not likely to commit an offence while on bail. The two conditions are cumulative. The standard is more than a prima facie view and requires assessment of substantial probable cause on the material available at the bail stage. In applying these principles, the Court may examine the case on broad probabilities rather than by meticulous weighing of evidence.

Conclusion: The twin conditions under Section 37 were held to govern the bail inquiry, and the Court applied them on broad probabilities.

Issue (ii): What is the evidentiary worth of stock witnesses?

Analysis: Witnesses who repeatedly surface as purportedly independent chance witnesses in different cases at different places and times create an inherent improbability. Where unrelated persons are repeatedly used in multiple recoveries, their neutrality and presence become suspect, and their testimony loses credibility. On the facts, the repeated use of the same two persons in several narcotics recoveries seriously undermined the prosecution version and cast doubt on the alleged recovery itself.

Conclusion: The evidence of stock witnesses was treated as unreliable and of little or no evidentiary worth.

Issue (iii): Can a conviction under Section 21(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 be based solely on a confession recorded by an officer of the Narcotics Control Bureau?

Analysis: A statement recorded under Section 67 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 by an authorised officer is not excluded merely because the officer is not a police officer within the meaning of Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Such a confession is admissible if voluntarily made. However, a confession can be the sole basis of conviction only when its voluntariness and credibility are unimpeached; if there is any doubt or taint, corroboration by other credible evidence is necessary.

Conclusion: A voluntary Section 67 confession may be relied upon, but it can form the sole basis of conviction only if proved to be fully voluntary and reliable.

Final Conclusion: On the material before it, the Court found a substantial doubt about the recovery and the prosecution case, held that the petitioner was unlikely to be ultimately convicted, and granted bail because the Section 37 conditions were satisfied.

Ratio Decidendi: For bail under Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, the Court may grant relief on broad probabilities where the prosecution evidence is rendered doubtful by unreliable stock witnesses and where a Section 67 confession, though admissible, is not yet shown to be wholly voluntary and dependable.

---