2020 (9) TMI 168 - HC - Indian Laws

Court grants bail in NDPS case due to weak evidence and lack of investigation into key individuals.

JAY HARESH SOMAIYA Versus NARCOTIC CONTROL BUREAU

The petitioner was granted bail in connection with a case filed by the Narcotics Control Bureau under the NDPS Act. The court found the evidence linking ... Grant of Bail - Smuggling - Charas - acquittal of the accused - offence punishable under Sections 8(c), 20 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - HELD THAT:- This Court is of the view that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioner may be acquitted. Admittedly, the petitioner is not involved in any other criminal case and there is no reason to believe that he would commit a similar offence, if released. It appears to be the prosecution’s case that the petitioner had begun dealing in drugs to feed his addiction. But, as noticed earlier, there is nothing on record to establish that the petitioner is a drug addict. The present petition is allowed and the petitioner is directed to be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of ₹ 25,000/- with one surety of an equivalent amount to the satisfaction of the concerned Jail Superintendent/Trial Court/Duty Magistrate, subject to conditions imposed. Issues Involved:1. Legality of the petitioner's arrest and the admissibility of their statements.2. Evidence corroborating the petitioner's involvement in drug trafficking.3. Grounds for granting bail to the petitioner.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Legality of the Petitioner's Arrest and the Admissibility of Their Statements:The petitioner sought bail in connection with S.C. No.107/2018 filed by the Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB) under Sections 8(c), 20, and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act). The NCB's case relied heavily on the disclosure statements made by Rafik and the petitioner. Both individuals later retracted their statements. The Supreme Court has referred the question of the admissibility of such statements to a Larger Bench in Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu: (2013) 16 SCC 31. Even if accepted as admissible, such self-incriminating statements are considered weak evidence and can only be used to corroborate other evidence.2. Evidence Corroborating the Petitioner's Involvement in Drug Trafficking:The NCB claimed that on 05.11.2017, Rafik and Guljar were found carrying 6.2 kgs of charas at Hazrat Nizamuddin Railway Station. Rafik's statement implicated the petitioner, alleging that the petitioner was involved in the business of dealing in charas. The NCB also relied on bank statements showing cash deposits in the accounts of Neel Chand and his family members, as well as call detail records (CDRs) between the petitioner and Neel Chand, and the petitioner and Rafik. However, the court noted that the cash deposits did not correspond to any specific transactions, and there was no material to establish that the petitioner made these deposits. Additionally, the petitioner's disclosure statement did not align with the recovery made from Rafik, and several individuals named in the statements were not investigated or charged.3. Grounds for Granting Bail to the Petitioner:The court found that there were reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioner might be acquitted. The petitioner was not involved in any other criminal case, and there was no evidence to suggest that he would commit a similar offense if released. The prosecution's claim that the petitioner dealt in drugs to feed his addiction was unsupported by medical evidence. Consequently, the court granted bail to the petitioner, subject to conditions including providing a contact number, marking presence before the local police station monthly, reporting to the investigating officer, attending all court proceedings, and not contacting any persons named in his disclosure statement.Conclusion:The petition was allowed, and the petitioner was granted bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 25,000 with one surety of an equivalent amount. The court clarified that the observations made were prima facie and solely for the purpose of examining the bail application, and the Trial Court should evaluate the evidence independently.