1. Accused charged under Sections 21(b), 29, and 27A of the NDPS Act for financing illicit trafficking and harbouring offenders — Appeal against High Court bail order. (Para 2 , 4 , 5 )
Back
Next 
2022 Supreme(SC) 592
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
DINESH MAHESHWARI, ANIRUDDHA BOSE, JJ.
State of West Bengal – Appellant
Versus
Rakesh Singh @ Rakesh Kumar Singh – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 923 of 2022, SLP (Crl.) No. 9470 of 2021
Decided On : 11-07-2022
Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Anand Grover, Sr. Adv. Mr. Suhaan Mukerji, Adv. Mr. Vishal Prasad, Adv. Mr. Abhishek Manchanda, Adv. Mr. Sayandeep Pahari, Adv. Mr. Tanmay Sinha, Adv. M/S. PLR Chambers and Co., AOR
For the Respondent: Mr. Vivek Narayan Sharma, AOR Ms. Mahima Bhardwaj, Adv. Mr. Nikhil Jaiwal, Adv. Mr. Ajay Singh, Adv. Mr. Shubham Awasthi, Adv. Mr. Sudhanshu Khandelwal, Adv. Mr. Rajeev K.Jha, Adv.
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Anand Grover, Sr. Adv. Mr. Suhaan Mukerji, Adv. Mr. Vishal Prasad, Adv. Mr. Abhishek Manchanda, Adv. Mr. Sayandeep Pahari, Adv. Mr. Tanmay Sinha, Adv. M/S. PLR Chambers and Co., AOR
For the Respondent: Mr. Vivek Narayan Sharma, AOR Ms. Mahima Bhardwaj, Adv. Mr. Nikhil Jaiwal, Adv. Mr. Ajay Singh, Adv. Mr. Shubham Awasthi, Adv. Mr. Sudhanshu Khandelwal, Adv. Mr. Rajeev K.Jha, Adv.
The Supreme Court held that significant contradictions between the initial FIR and the charge-sheet regarding the planting of contraband create reasonable doubt about the accused's complicity. In such cases, the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act may not apply, justifying the grant of bail.
Headnote:(A) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Section 21(b)/29/27A - Bail granted to accused charged with financing illicit drug trafficking - The High Court found no recovery from the respondent, and the allegations lacked prima facie evidence - The prosecution's narrative evolved from the FIR to the charge-sheet, raising doubts about its credibility - There was no compelling evidence to support charges under Section 27A, thus the restrictions under Section 37 of NDPS Act did not apply. (Paras 8.1, 8.3, 18.1)
(B) Bail - High Court granted bail on stringent conditions due to doubts on prosecution's claims and respondent's potential risk of tampering with evidence - Numerous criminal cases against the respondent did not specifically involve drug-related offences. (Paras 8.2, 18.1, 14)
Facts of the case:
The respondent was accused of financing drug trafficking involving 76 grams of cocaine, allegedly planted in a vehicle occupied by others, based on accusations of conspiracy stemming from personal grievances.
Findings of Court:
The High Court ruled no substantial evidence supported the prosecution's story or the applicability of Section 27A, leading to the decision for bail with strict conditions.
Issues: Whether sufficient evidence existed to deny bail under the NDPS Act, given the allegation of planting drugs and conspiracy which evolved from the initial complaint to the charge-sheet.
Ratio Decidendi: The court determined the significant variance between the FIR and charge-sheet undermined the prosecution case, leading to a prima facie belief of the respondent's innocence.
Result: Appeal dismissed; bail ordered with conditions.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- crime and sentencing
- practice and procedure
Table of Contents
2. Contradictions between the initial FIR and subsequent charge-sheet regarding the recovery of contraband create reasonable doubt about the accused's complicity and the veracity of the prosecution case. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 )
3. Appeal dismissed — High Court order granting bail with stringent conditions upheld. (Para 19 , 21 )
4. Do criminal antecedents in non-NDPS cases automatically justify denying bail under the NDPS Act?
No; if there is no history of dealing in narcotics and the current evidence is prima facie doubtful, criminal antecedents in other matters may not outweigh the grounds for bail. (Para 18 )
JUDGMENT :
DINESH MAHESHWARI, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal by the State of West Bengal is directed against the order dated 24.11.2021, as passed by the Division Bench of Calcutta High Court in CRM No. 3152 of 2021, whereby the respondent, an accused of the offences under Sections 21 (b)/29/27A of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 19851 [Hereinafter also referred to as ‘the NDPS Act’] has been ordered to be enlarged on bail with certain additional conditions, apart from bail bonds and sureties.
3. Though, the validity of the order granting bail is in question in this appeal and final determination of all the contentious issues is not called for but, looking to the nature of rival submissions made before us as also the nature of accusations concerning the respondent, a somewhat lengthy reference to the relevant background aspects is rather inevitable.
4. The matter in issue in this appeal has its genesis in FIR No. 65 of 2021 dated 19.02.2021, registered at New Alipore Police Station, Kolkata, initially in respect of offences under Sections 21 (b)/29 NDPS Act; after recovery of 76 grams of cocaine from a motorcar bearing Registration No. WB-06P-0233 with three occupants, namely, Somnath Chattopadhyay (security guard), Prabir Kumar De and Pamela Goswami. However, on 23.02.2021, the respondent Rakesh Singh @ Rakesh Kumar Singh was arrested in this matter with the accusations essentially pertaining to the offence under Section 27A of the NDPS Act, i.e. financing illicit trafficking in contrabands and harbouring offenders and with the allegations that he got the contraband procured and then got it planted in the vehicle occupied by the aforesaid three persons.
5. It is the accusations concerning the respondent which forms the core of the subject-matter of this appeal. Thus, we may take note of the salient features of the prosecution case against the respondent as follows:
5.1. As per the prosecution, the respondent had hatched a criminal conspiracy with the other charged co-accused persons for falsely implicating the said Prabir Kumar De and Pamela Goswami of offences under the NDPS Act out of personal grudge. It is alleged that in order to fulfil his designs, the respondent financed the activity of procuring cocaine, a contraband drug, to the tune of Rs. 8,50,000/- from the co-accused Amrita Singh @ Sweety; that upon receiving instructions and payment from the respondent, the said co-accused Amrita Singh @ Sweety procured the contraband from other co-accused persons, namely, Daim Akhtar and Farhan Ahmed and that after procurement, the contraband was handed over to the respondent by the co-accused Amrita Singh @ Sweety.
5.2. According to the prosecution, the respondent, thereafter, engaged the co-accused Amrit Raj Singh, who allured the said Prabir Kumar De and Pamela Goswami to attend a meeting with a senior political leader at New Alipore area on 19.02.2021 in relation with the ensuing Legislative Assembly elections and the said Amrit Raj Singh went to the house of the respondent on 18.02.2021 and was also seen using the vehicle of the respondent.
5.3. It has further been alleged that on 19.02.2021, the said Prabir Kumar De and Pamela Goswami, accompanied by their security guard Somnath Chattopadhyay, picked up Amrit Raj Singh in their vehicle and proceeded for the meeting scheduled at New Alipore area. Upon reaching the place of occurrence, Amrit Raj Singh, on the pretext of changing his clothes, stayed in the vehicle while Prabir Kumar De, Pamela Goswami, and Somnath Chattopadhyay got off. Taking advantage of the circumstances, Amrit Raj Singh concealed cocaine in different parts of the vehicle and made a call to the respondent over a phone number, which stood in the name of one Jitendra Kumar Singh. Thereafter, Amrit Raj Singh fled on a scooty, as instructed by the respondent and then, took shelter at the respondent’s residence.
5.4. As regards recovery and seizure of contraband, it has been alleged that on 19.02
