The main legal point established is that for grant of anticipatory bail under the NDPS Act, there must be reasonable grounds to believe the accused is not guilty and is not likely to commit an offense while on bail, and a confessional statement alone is not sufficient without independent corroborative evidence.

JUDGMENT :

Jasmeet Singh, J.

1. This Application has been preferred by the applicant under section 438 of the Cr.P.C. seeking grant of anticipatory bail in FIR No. 234/2022 registered at PS Kalyan Puri u/s 21 NDPS Act. The anticipatory bail of the applicant has been dismissed by the Special Judge, NDPS, East, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi on 21.02.2022.

2. The brief facts of the case are as under:

a) On 30.01.2022, ASI Pramod Singh, posted at Special Staff East District, received an information that a person, who procures the contraband “smack” from Badaun/Bareilly, Uttar Pradesh and supplies it in parts of Delhi, would come near The Mother Mary Public School, Ghazipur Road, in the area of PS Kalyan Puri. The information was shared with other officers who decided to conduct a raid.

b) The team laid a trap on Ghazipur Road, near Gate of the Mother Mary Public School, Kalyan Puri, Delhi and at about 9.10pm a man a bag on his back emerged on the spot who was pointed out by the informer, who later identified him as Mohd. Akleem. Mohd. Akleem was waiting at the gate when he was nabbed by the staff. On enquiry he stated his name and address as Mohd. Akleem S/o Shakil Ahmed R/o Vill-Bhasundra. Notice under section 50 Narcotic Drugs Psychotropic Substances Act (hereinafter “NDPS Act”) were served to all apprehended persons.

c) Interrogation was conducted of Mohd. Akleem after his arrest and he disclosed that he used to supply “smack” to Applicant Irshad @ Neta and that the Applicant is the resident of the same village as Mohd. Akleem. It is on this statement and during the course of the investigation that a notice u/s 67 NDPS Act was served to the Applicant, Md. Irshad to join the investigation.

d) The Special Judge, NDPS, East Karkardooma Courts dismissed the anticipatory bail application of the Applicant on 21.02.2022 observing the following:

“Keeping in view the fact that the recovery of smack from Mohd. Akleem is 300 grams which is commercial quantity, bar under section 37 of the NDPC Act regarding bail is attracted. Name of the applicant/accused Mohd. Irshad has been disclosed by Mohd. Akleem. Investigation of the case is pending. Source and supply lines of the recovered contraband are to be identified. In these facts and circumstances, this is not a fit case for grant of pre-arrest bail. Accordingly, the application for grant of pre-arrest bail of applicant/accused Mohd. Irshad is dismissed.”

3. The Applicant had filed this application apprehending arrest in a false case of the complainant filed against the Applicant. He further stated that he is a person of repute and enjoys an enviable reputation among the society and has been falsely implicated.

4. The Ld. Counsel for the Applicant has relied upon the following case laws for supporting his application:

a) On the Supreme Court judgment in Crl. Appl. No. 949/2018 dated 31.07.2018, Surinder Kumar Khanna v. Intelligence Officer Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, wherein the court has observed the following:

“10. Even if we are to proceed on the premise that such statement under Section 67 of the NDPS Act may amount to confession, in our view, certain additional features must be established before such a confessional statement could be relied upon against a co-accused. It is noteworthy that unlike Section 15 of Terrorist and Disruptive Activities Act, 1987 which specifically makes confession of a co-accused admissible against other accused in certain eventualities; there is no such similar or identical provision in the NDPS Act making such confession admissible against a co-accused. The matter therefore has to be seen in the light of the law laid down by this Court as regards general application of a confession of a co-accused as against other accused.

14….On the touchstone of law laid down by this Court such a confessional statement of a co-accused cannot by itself be taken as a substantive piece of evidence against another co-accused and can at best be used or utilized in order to lend assuran