2021 (6) TMI 1053 - HC - Indian Laws

Court denies bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C for NDPS Act offenses citing stringent conditions.

ALLAH NOOR Versus NARCOTIC CONTROL BUREAU

The court dismissed the bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C for offences under the NDPS Act, citing the stringent conditions of Section 37. The ... Smuggling - Heroin - Evidentiary value of statement given by the petitioner under Section 67 of the NDPS Act - statements given by an accused to police officers under various acts including the NDPS Act - HELD THAT:- The material on record, at this juncture, shows the involvement of the petitioner as a part of the drug syndicate. Heroin was concealed in capsules ingested by persons. It shows that the operation was extremely well planned. A total of 770 grams of Heroin was recovered on 20.08.2019 from Noorzai Gul Amin, 220 grams of Cocaine was recovered on 19.12.2019 from House No. 1238, Islampur Village, Sector-38, Gurugram and 3.4 Kgs. of Heroin was recovered on 22.08.2019 from House No. A-27, 1st Floor, Anand Vihar on the basis of the disclosure statement of the petitioner. Photographs of Heroin and capsules, image of passports, image of Currency and chats between Naimitullah Mangal and the petitioner herein and their photographs were found from the phone of the petitioner which demonstrates the complicity of the petitioner in the crime. The well organized operations of this syndicate shows the possibility of the petitioner indulging in the same activity again if he is released on bail. The discrepancy in the seal movement register and its effect would be considered/analysed at the stage of trial and that discrepancy alone is not sufficient for this Court to come to the conclusion that the entire case of the prosecution is false at this stage. This Court is, therefore, not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner herein - bail application is dismissed. Issues Involved:1. Grant of bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C for offences under NDPS Act.2. Evidentiary value of statements under Section 67 of NDPS Act.3. Discrepancies in the seal movement register and their impact on the case.4. Compliance with Section 37 of NDPS Act for granting bail.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Grant of bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C for offences under NDPS Act:The petitioner sought bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C in Case No. VIII/32/DZU/2019 registered at Narcotics Control Bureau, R.K. Puram, Delhi, for offences under Sections 8(A)/21(C)/23(C)/29 of the NDPS Act. The petitioner has been in custody since 23.08.2019 and argued that there is no material against him other than the disclosure statements made under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, which he contended have no evidentiary value.2. Evidentiary value of statements under Section 67 of NDPS Act:The petitioner’s counsel cited several Supreme Court judgments, including Tofan Singh v. State of T.N. and Abdul Rashid v. State of Bihar, to argue that statements made to police officers under the NDPS Act cannot be accepted as evidence and cannot be the sole basis for conviction. The counsel emphasized that the petitioner’s statements under Section 67 should not be considered sufficient to deny bail.3. Discrepancies in the seal movement register and their impact on the case:The petitioner’s counsel pointed out discrepancies in the NCB's seal movement register, arguing that the search and seizure at the petitioner’s residence were allegedly conducted on 22.08.2019, but the register indicated the operation was done on 21.08.2019. This discrepancy was presented as a ground for acquittal, suggesting that the prosecution's case regarding the search and seizure was unreliable.4. Compliance with Section 37 of NDPS Act for granting bail:The court highlighted that for offences involving commercial quantities of narcotics, Section 37 of the NDPS Act imposes stringent conditions for granting bail. The court referred to several Supreme Court judgments, including Collector of Customs v. Ahmadalieva Nodira and Union of India v. Rattan Mallik, which mandate that bail can only be granted if the court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of the offence and is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. The court noted that 'reasonable grounds' imply substantial probable causes, not just prima facie grounds.The court observed that the material on record indicated the petitioner’s involvement in a well-organized drug syndicate, with substantial recoveries of heroin and cocaine linked to the petitioner. The court found that the evidence, including photographs and chat records from the petitioner’s phone, demonstrated his complicity in the crime. The court also noted that the discrepancy in the seal movement register would be considered at the trial stage and was not sufficient to conclude that the prosecution's case was false at this stage.Conclusion:The court concluded that the stringent conditions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act were not met, as there were no reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioner was not guilty of the offences. The potential for the petitioner to re-engage in similar activities if released on bail was also a concern. Consequently, the bail application was dismissed along with any pending applications.