Retracted section 67 statements under the NDPS Act cannot alone sustain bail refusal without supporting recovery or incriminating material.

A retracted statement recorded under section 67 of the NDPS Act cannot, by itself, be treated as admissible confessional material for opposing bail, especially where no recovery is made from the accused's person or premises. The analysis further notes that section 37 restrictions do not automatically bar release when the prosecution case rests mainly on such a statement and a co-accused's version, without stronger incriminating material. On that basis, the bail petition was allowed, subject to bond, surety and other conditions.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a statement recorded under section 67 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 could be treated as a confessional statement for the purpose of opposing bail. (ii) Whether, in the facts of the case, the restrictions under section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 justified refusal of bail.

Issue (i): Whether a statement recorded under section 67 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 could be treated as a confessional statement for the purpose of opposing bail.

Analysis: The statement attributed to the petitioner was considered in the light of the later legal position that a statement recorded under section 67 cannot be used as a confessional statement in the trial of an offence under the Act. The record also showed that the petitioner had retracted his statement at the first available opportunity. In the absence of recovery from the petitioner's person or shop, the statement by itself could not be treated as sufficient substantive material to keep him in custody.

Conclusion: The statement under section 67 could not, by itself, be treated as admissible confessional material against the petitioner.

Issue (ii): Whether, in the facts of the case, the restrictions under section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 justified refusal of bail.

Analysis: The Court noted that the prosecution case against the petitioner rested essentially on a retracted section 67 statement and the statement of a co-accused, while no incriminating recovery was made from the petitioner. The Court found that the material on record did not show such a case as would defeat the statutory satisfaction required under section 37, and that the prosecution could establish its case at trial through other material if available. On the facts, the Court was satisfied that the petitioner was entitled to bail.

Conclusion: The section 37 embargo did not bar release on bail in the present case.

Final Conclusion: The bail petition was allowed and the petitioner was directed to be released on furnishing bond and surety, subject to conditions.

Ratio Decidendi: A retracted statement under section 67 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, without supporting recovery or other incriminating material, cannot by itself justify continued incarceration where the statutory requirements for bail are otherwise satisfied.

---