2022 (1) TMI 1366 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court Upholds Bail in Drug Trafficking Case, Cancels for Possession

State by (NCB) Bengaluru Versus Pallulabid Ahmad Arimutta & Anr. ; Union of India Versus Mohammed Afzal; Union of India Narcotics Control Bureau, Bengaluru Versus Mohammed Afzal; State by Intelligence Officer, Narcotics Control Bureau Versus Munees Kavil Paramabath @ Munees KP; State of Karnataka Versus Munees Kavil Paramabath; State by Intelligence Officer (NCB) Bengaluru Zonal Unit, Bengaluru Versus Abu Thahir @ Abdu & Etc.

The Supreme Court upheld the bail orders for most respondents accused of drug trafficking offenses, dismissing the Narcotic Control Bureau's petitions ... Validity of bail granted - Drug Trafficking - recovery of substantial commercial quantities of drugs from a rented accommodation - Section 67 of the NDPS Act - HELD THAT:- 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. 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 granted bail vide order dated 08th January, 2020, will have to be treated on an entirely different footing. There are specific allegations levelled against the said respondent regarding recovery of substantial commercial quantities of drugs from a rented accommodation occupied by him pursuant to which he was arrested on 16th June, 2019. This aspect has been completely overlooked while passing the order dated 08th January, 2020 wherein, the only reason that appears to have weighed with the High Court for releasing him on bail is that his case stands on the same footing as A-1, A-3 and A-4 who had been enlarged on bail vide orders dated 11th October, 2019, 16th September, 2019 and 09th September, 2019, in connection with the second case registered by the Department - A-2 cannot seek parity with the aforesaid co-accused and no such benefit could have been extended to him in view of Section 37 of the Act when he was found to be in conscious possession of commercial quantity of psychotropic substances, as contemplated under the NDPS Act. The bail granted to the respondent-Mohmmed Afzal [A-2] is cancelled forthwith at this stage and he is directed to surrender before the Sessions Court/Special Judge (NDPS) within a period of two weeks, for being taken into custody - Petition disposed off. Issues:Interconnected cases arising from Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Bail granted by High Court challenged by Narcotic Control Bureau - Admissibility of confessional statements under Section 67 of NDPS Act - Evidence at the time of arrest - Commercial quantities of drugs - Cancellation of bail.Analysis:The Supreme Court addressed interconnected cases stemming from the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, where the Narcotic Control Bureau (NCB) challenged the High Court's decision to grant bail to the respondents accused of drug trafficking offenses. The NCB contended that the stringent conditions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act were not met to warrant bail for the respondents. The NCB primarily relied on voluntary statements of the accused and co-accused recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act for the arrests. The Court directed the NCB to provide a comprehensive tabulated statement detailing the roles of each respondent, evidence against them, and antecedents. The Court noted that, except for the confessional statements, there was insufficient material connecting the respondents to the drug trafficking allegations. It was highlighted that none of the respondents, except one, were found with commercial quantities of drugs as defined by the NDPS Act.The Court cited the case of Tofan Singh Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, emphasizing that confessional statements under Section 67 of the NDPS Act are inadmissible in trial. Therefore, arrests based on such statements could not be the sole basis for denying bail. The Court found that the evidence presented did not justify rejecting the bail granted by the High Court. Consequently, the Court upheld the bail orders for most respondents, dismissing the NCB's petitions seeking cancellation.However, the Court took a different stance regarding one respondent, Mohammed Afzal, in the second case. Specific allegations of recovery of substantial drug quantities from his premises were overlooked by the High Court when granting him bail. The Court determined that Afzal's case was distinct from other co-accused and canceled his bail, directing him to surrender within two weeks. This decision was based on Afzal being found in conscious possession of commercial quantities of drugs as defined under the NDPS Act.The Court clarified that its observations were limited to the bail cancellation petitions and refrained from commenting on the case's merits pending before the trial court. The judgment concluded by disposing of the petitions in line with the decisions outlined above.