Section 67 statements cannot alone sustain bail cancellation, but commercial quantity recovery can defeat parity under NDPS law.

A voluntary or confessional statement recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, by itself, could not justify cancellation of bail where no substantial material linked the accused to drug trafficking at the arrest stage and the remaining allegations were left for trial. Bail was therefore upheld for the respondents other than Mohammed Afzal. By contrast, where specific material showed recovery of commercial quantity of psychotropic substances from premises occupied by Mohammed Afzal, parity with co-accused could not displace the rigour of Section 37 of the NDPS Act. His bail was cancelled and he was directed to surrender.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether bail granted to the respondents, other than Mohammed Afzal, was liable to be cancelled on the basis of statements recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act and the accompanying material; (ii) Whether the bail granted to Mohammed Afzal was liable to be cancelled in view of the recovery of commercial quantity of psychotropic substances from premises occupied by him and the inapplicability of parity.

Issue (i): Whether bail granted to the respondents, other than Mohammed Afzal, was liable to be cancelled on the basis of statements recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act and the accompanying material.

Analysis: The material against these respondents consisted mainly of voluntary or confessional statements recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act and, in some cases, call detail records. The Court found that, apart from such statements, there was no substantial material available at the stage of arrest to connect them with drug trafficking, and most of them were not shown to have been found in possession of commercial quantity of psychotropic substances. In view of the ruling that a statement under Section 67 of the NDPS Act is inadmissible in the trial of an NDPS offence, such statements could not justify cancellation of bail. The remaining allegations were left to be examined at trial.

Conclusion: The challenge to the bail orders in these matters failed and the bail granted to the respondents, other than Mohammed Afzal, was upheld.

Issue (ii): Whether the bail granted to Mohammed Afzal was liable to be cancelled in view of the recovery of commercial quantity of psychotropic substances from premises occupied by him and the inapplicability of parity.

Analysis: The Court found that specific allegations existed that substantial commercial quantities of drugs had been recovered from a rented accommodation occupied by Mohammed Afzal, and that this aspect had been overlooked by the High Court. His case was not comparable to the co-accused who had earlier obtained bail. In such circumstances, the protection of parity could not override the rigour of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, particularly where conscious possession of commercial quantity was alleged.

Conclusion: The bail granted to Mohammed Afzal was cancelled and he was directed to surrender before the competent court.

Final Conclusion: The Court upheld the bail orders in the connected matters except in the case of Mohammed Afzal, whose bail was cancelled on account of the commercial quantity recovery and the inapplicability of parity under the NDPS regime.

Ratio Decidendi: A confession or voluntary statement recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act cannot, by itself, sustain cancellation of bail, but where a respondent is specifically linked to recovery of commercial quantity and conscious possession, Section 37 of the NDPS Act can justify cancellation notwithstanding parity claims.

---