NDPS bail and Section 67 evidence: lack of recovery and weak linkage material justified regular bail

In an NDPS bail matter involving alleged trafficking through courier consignments, no recovery was made from the accused, and the prosecution relied mainly on Section 67 statements, mobile records, and witness narration. The accused's Section 67 statement was not treated as substantive evidence, and the witness evidence did not directly link him to delivery of the parcels, while the person said to be able to identify the delivery was not examined. Despite the Section 37 embargo for commercial quantity cases, the Court found the material insufficient to establish prima facie guilt or a likelihood of reoffending on bail, and regular bail was granted.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to regular bail in an NDPS case involving commercial quantity, having regard to the statutory embargo under Section 37 and the nature of the material against him.

Analysis: The prosecution case alleged involvement in trafficking of psychotropic substances through courier consignments, but no recovery was effected from the petitioner. The material against him consisted mainly of statements recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act and certain linkage evidence through mobile records and witness narration. The statement of the petitioner under Section 67 could not be relied upon as substantive evidence in view of the settled position on admissibility. The witness Satpal did not state that the petitioner himself delivered the parcels, and the person who could directly identify the delivery, Danish, was not examined. Though Section 37 imposed a stringent test for bail in commercial quantity cases, the Court found the available evidence insufficient to conclude that the petitioner was prima facie guilty or likely to commit an offence while on bail.

Conclusion: The petitioner was held entitled to regular bail.

---