Regular bail in NDPS case allowed where Section 67 statement and uncertified WhatsApp messages lacked evidentiary value.

Regular bail was granted in an NDPS matter where no recovery was made from the petitioner and he was not apprehended at the spot. The prosecution case depended mainly on a co-accused's disclosure statement, the petitioner's statement under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, and WhatsApp messages. The court treated the Section 67 statement as insufficient at this stage because it could not be used as a confessional statement in trial for an NDPS offence. The WhatsApp messages also carried no evidentiary value then, as they were not supported by a Section 65B certificate under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

---

---

Issues: Whether regular bail should be granted where the prosecution case rested on a co-accused's disclosure, the petitioner's statement under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, and WhatsApp messages without Section 65B certification.

Analysis: The recovery was of commercial quantity, but the petitioner was not shown to have been apprehended at the spot and no recovery was made from him. The prosecution relied on the co-accused's disclosure statement and the petitioner's own statement under Section 67 of the NDPS Act. In view of the law that a Section 67 statement cannot be used as a confessional statement in the trial of an NDPS offence, the petitioner's self-incriminatory statement could not, at this stage, be treated as substantive incriminating material. The WhatsApp messages were also not accompanied by the necessary certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and therefore had no evidentiary value as of then.

Conclusion: Regular bail was granted to the petitioner.

---