https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=405646 A retracted statement recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, standing alone and unsupported by recovery or other incriminating material, could not be treated as substantive confessional material against the accused at the bail stage, especially in light of the majority view in Tofan Singh. The Delhi HC also found that the statutory restrictions under Section 37 were satisfied on the record because no recovery was made from the accused, no call-detail or similar linkage with the principal accused was shown, and there was no material indicating a likelihood of reoffending. Bail was therefore granted without any finding on the merits. en-us Thu, 18 Mar 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 28 Oct 2024 16:33:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=405646 A retracted statement recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, standing alone and unsupported by recovery or other incriminating material, could not be treated as substantive confessional material against the accused at the bail stage, especially in light of the majority view in Tofan Singh. The Delhi HC also found that the statutory restrictions under Section 37 were satisfied on the record because no recovery was made from the accused, no call-detail or similar linkage with the principal accused was shown, and there was no material indicating a likelihood of reoffending. Bail was therefore granted without any finding on the merits. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 18 Mar 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=405646