TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the cancellation of bail granted to the accused was justified in the absence of recovered contraband from his possession and in view of the evidentiary value of statements under Section 67 of the NDPS Act; (ii) Whether bail to the co-accused was liable to be refused where the seizure, test reports, and statutory safeguards did not conclusively establish commercial quantity or a sufficient nexus with the alleged offence.
Issue (i): Whether the cancellation of bail granted to the accused was justified in the absence of recovered contraband from his possession and in view of the evidentiary value of statements under Section 67 of the NDPS Act.
Analysis: The available material showed that no psychotropic substance was recovered from the accused's residence or office, and the prosecution's reliance on electronic data remained incomplete because scientific reports were still awaited. The test reports on record did not establish quantitative analysis of the samples, and the record also indicated that several seized tablets were herbal or male potency enhancement products outside the NDPS regime. In these circumstances, reliance solely on co-accused statements recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act was held to be too tenuous, particularly in light of the rule that such a confessional statement is inadmissible as substantive evidence.
Conclusion: The cancellation of bail was not justified, and the earlier bail order was restored in favour of the accused.
Issue (ii): Whether bail to the co-accused was liable to be refused where the seizure, test reports, and statutory safeguards did not conclusively establish commercial quantity or a sufficient nexus with the alleged offence.
Analysis: The material before the Court did not conclusively show commercial quantity, as the test reports themselves noted that quantitative analysis could not be carried out for want of facilities. The seizure also included a substantial number of tablets described as herbal or medicinal potency enhancers, which did not attract the NDPS Act. Further, the search at the co-accused's Jaipur premises yielded no contraband, and the alleged link through downloaded messages and devices could not at that stage substitute for reliable proof, especially when the scientific report on the devices remained awaited. In these circumstances, the prosecution had not shown sufficient material to defeat the bail claim.
Conclusion: Bail was granted to the co-accused, subject to the trial court's satisfaction.
Final Conclusion: The Court interfered with the High Court's cancellation of bail in one matter and also granted bail in the connected matter, while leaving the merits of the NDPS prosecution open for trial.
Ratio Decidendi: At the bail stage under the NDPS Act, cancellation or refusal cannot rest on untested allegations, incomplete scientific material, or co-accused confessional statements alone when no contraband is recovered from the accused and the statutory threshold of commercial quantity is not conclusively established.
TaxTMI 
