TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Refugee's Bail Denied in Drug Case: Evidence Links Him to Trafficking</h1> The court denied the Syrian national refugee petitioner's bail application in a drug case due to substantial evidence linking him to trafficking ... Smuggling - recovery of contraband - recording of statement under Section 67 of the NDPS Act - legally admissible evidence present or not - as per petitioner when the matter was listed for framing of charge before the learned Trial Court both the petitioner and the co-accused Erbil Han had difficulty in understanding English language which shows that the statements recorded under Section 67 of NDPS Act were not voluntary - HELD THAT:- In the present case there is substantive evidence against the petitioner dehors the statement under Section 67 NDPS Act in the form of CCTV footages and the photos in the mobile phone of the petitioner. Considering the fact that the petitioner is involved in trafficking of commercial quantity of contraband i.e. 50 kgs 800 gms and it cannot be said that there is no legally admissible evidence against the petitioner to show his complicity in the alleged offence, at this stage this Court finds no ground to grant bail to the petitioner. Petition dismissed. Issues:Regular bail application under Sections 22/23/29 NDPS Act - Refugee status defense - Admissibility of statement under Section 67 NDPS Act - Parity with co-accused - Recovery of contraband tablets - CCTV footage evidence - Mirror image of petitioner's phone - Recovery of guarantee cards - Commercial quantity of contraband - Legally admissible evidence for complicity.Analysis:The petitioner, a Syrian national refugee, sought regular bail in a drug case where no recovery was made from him. His defense included being falsely implicated and the inadmissibility of the statement under Section 67 NDPS Act based on the Toofan Singh case precedent. The petitioner's inability to understand Hindi or English during statement recording was highlighted, along with the bail granted to a co-accused. However, the court noted substantive evidence like CCTV footage linking the petitioner to the contraband.The prosecution's case involved the recovery of a significant quantity of contraband tablets from another individual, Erbil Han, who implicated the petitioner. The petitioner's presence in the market, along with evidence from CCTV footage and a mirror image of his phone, connected him to the illegal trafficking. The recovery of guarantee cards and the absence of invoices did not negate the evidence against the petitioner.The court rejected the petitioner's claim for bail due to his involvement in trafficking a commercial quantity of contraband, supported by legally admissible evidence like CCTV footage, phone photos, and the recovery of guarantee cards. The court differentiated the petitioner's case from that of a co-accused based on the manufacturing and sale timeline of the contraband tablets. The court emphasized the presence of substantive evidence against the petitioner beyond the statements under Section 67 NDPS Act, leading to the dismissal of the bail application.In conclusion, the court dismissed the petitioner's bail application based on the substantial evidence connecting him to the trafficking of contraband tablets, despite his refugee status and defense arguments regarding the admissibility of statements and parity with a co-accused. The court's decision was grounded in the presence of legally admissible evidence and the commercial quantity of contraband involved in the case.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
