NDPS bail and Section 67 statements: prolonged pre-trial custody and weak corroboration justified release despite commercial quantity

In an NDPS prosecution involving commercial quantity, the Court treated Section 67 statements as inadmissible confessional material and found the remaining call records and mobile-app exchanges insufficiently corroborative to establish knowing involvement in concealment or trafficking. It held that Section 37 did not operate as an absolute bar on bail where the prosecution case lacked adequate corroboration and the accused had already spent about three years in custody without meaningful trial progress. The right to speedy trial under Article 21 was treated as a material factor, and continued detention was considered unjustified in the circumstances. Bail was granted subject to strict conditions.

---

---

Issues: Whether bail should be granted in an NDPS prosecution involving commercial quantity, where the case against the applicant rested substantially on Section 67 statements and there was prolonged incarceration without meaningful progress in trial.

Analysis: The material against the applicant was found to depend mainly on statements recorded under Section 67 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, along with call records and document exchanges on mobile applications. Such Section 67 statements could not be treated as confessional material against the applicant in view of the settled position that they are not admissible as confessions in NDPS trials. The remaining material was considered insufficiently corroborative to show knowing involvement in the concealment or trafficking of narcotics. Although the seized quantity was commercial, the Court held that the rigour of Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 would not operate as an absolute bar in the facts of the case, especially when the applicant had remained in custody for about three years and the trial had not progressed, making early conclusion unlikely. The right to speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India was treated as a material consideration overriding continued detention in the circumstances.

Conclusion: Bail was granted to the applicant, subject to strict conditions, as the Court found insufficient corroborative material and accepted that prolonged incarceration without trial progress justified release notwithstanding the quantity involved.

Ratio Decidendi: In an NDPS case, where the prosecution material against the accused substantially rests on inadmissible Section 67 statements and there is prolonged pre-trial incarceration with no real prospect of early trial completion, Section 37 does not prevent grant of bail if the remaining material is not sufficiently corroborative.

---