IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Jasmeet Singh, J.
Phundreimayum Yas Khan – Appellant
Versus
State (GNCT of Delhi) – Respondent
Bail Appln. 1383 of 2022
Decided On : 11-01-2023
NDPS Act - Regular Bail - Section 8(C)/29 - Tofan Singh v State of Tamil Nadu - Section 67 - Section 25 of the Evidence Act - Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act - Amit Ranjan v. Narcotics Control Bureau
Fact of the Case:
The applicant sought regular bail in a case involving the possession and sale of narcotics medicines. The prosecution relied on the disclosure statement of a co-accused and call record details to establish the applicant's involvement.
Finding of the Court:
The court analyzed the evidence and found that there was no recovery of contraband from the applicant or his premises. The court also noted that the prosecution failed to establish a money trail or conspiracy involving the applicant. The court emphasized the principles of innocence until proven guilty and the insufficiency of circumstantial evidence to establish guilt.
Issues: The key issues included the admissibility of the co-accused's disclosure statement, the applicability of Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, and the sufficiency of evidence to establish guilt.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the disclosure statement of the co-accused was not admissible without corroboration and that the prosecution failed to establish the applicant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The court emphasized the need for substantive evidence to establish guilt.
Final Decision: The court granted the applicant bail, considering the lack of recovery of contraband, absence of a money trail, and insufficiency of evidence to establish guilt.
JUDGMENT
Jasmeet Singh, J. This is an application seeking grant of regular bail to the applicant in Case No. 186/2021, FIR No. VIII/02/DZU/2021 registered at P.S. NCB, Delhi under section 8(C)/29 of NDPS Act, pending before the Patiala House Courts, New Delhi.
2. The brief facts of the case are that on 30.01.2021, a secret information was received at Delhi Zonal Unit, NCB that one person namely Sayed Javed Hussain is travelling to Manipur by Air India Flight No. AI-889 from Terminal-3, IGI Airport and is carrying huge quantity of NRX Medicines. He was apprehended at the airport and on his search he was found carrying 36,000 tablets of Tramadol weighing about 22.1 kg as well as 20 bottles of Codeine Syrup. Subsequently, Sayed Javed Hussain was arrested and during the course of investigation, while tendering his statement under section 67 of NDPS Act, he revealed of the present applicant, i.e. Phundreimayun Yaz Khan. He stated that the applicant is his friend and he used to purchase the contraband from Delhi through the applicant and thereafter sell the contraband in Manipur. Co-accused Sayed Javed Hussain further disclosed that on 26.01.2021, he reached Rajouri Garden Metro Station where the applicant sold him the said contraband procured through Amarjit Singh Sandhu. Hence, the applicant was arrested.
3. The statement of the applicant was also recorded under section 67 of the NDPS Act, wherein he disclosed that he was running a pharmacy business since 2017 and he used to purchase the Narcotics Medicines from one Amarjit Singh Sandhu. He revealed that the recovered contraband was also purchased from him by cash.
4. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that there is no evidence against the applicant, except the disclosure statement of the co-accused Sayed Javed Hussain and it is solely on this basis, that the FIR has been registered against the applicant. He further submits that neither any CCTV footage was obtained from the Metro Station nor any public witness was associated at the time of arrest of the applicant. It is also stated that nothing is recovered from the applicant or at his instance.
5. The main reliance of the learned counsel for the petitioner is on the ratio of "Tofan Singh v State of Tamil Nadu", [2021 4 SCC 1] to say that a statement recorded under section 67 of the NDPS Act cannot be used as a confessional statement in the trial of an offence under the NDPS Act. He states that the two questions which were framed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Tofan Singh (supra) were as under:
"1. Whether an officer "empowered under Section 42 of the NDPS Act" and/or "the officer empowered under Section 53 of the NDPS Act" are "police officers" and therefore statements recorded by such officers would be hit by section 25 of the Evidence Act; and
2. What is the extent, nature, purpose and scope of the power conferred under Section 67 of the NDPS Act available to and exercisable by an officer under Section 42 thereof, and whether power under Section 67 is a power to record confession capable of being used as substantive evidence to convict an accused?"
6. After detailed analysis, the conclusions arrived by the Hon'ble Supreme Court were as under:
"158. We answer the reference by stating:
158.1 That the officers who are invested with powers under Section 53 of the NDPS Act are "police officers" within the meaning of Section 25 of the Evidence Act, as a result of which any confessional statement made to them would be barred under the provisions of Section 25 of the Evidence Act, and cannot be taken into account in order to convict an accused under the NDPS Act.
158.2. That a statement recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act cannot be used as a confessional statement in the trial of an offence under the NDPS Act."
7. Mr. Jain, learned counsel for the applicant states that the alleged location as per the CDRs of the applicant and Sayed Javed Hussain at Rajouri Garden is stated to be on 26.01.2021, whereas the recovery of
The judgment emphasizes the principles of innocence until proven guilty, the need for substantive evidence to establish guilt, and the limitations on the admissibility of disclosure statements withou....
The court established that confessions of co-accused require corroboration to justify detention, emphasizing the need for evidence in bail considerations under the NDPS Act.
Confessions of co-accused require corroboration to be admissible; mere allegations without evidence do not justify denial of bail.
Confessions of co-accused are inadmissible without corroboration, and circumstantial evidence alone does not establish guilt in narcotics cases.
Statements recorded under Section 67 NDPS Act are inadmissible being hit by Section 25 IEA, and the only way to make any part of such statements admissible is by way of Section 27 IEA which creates a....
The court established that for bail under the NDPS Act, there must be corroborative evidence beyond confessions to justify detention.
The court ruled that reliance on inadmissible co-accused statements cannot sustain a conviction, leading to the grant of bail under the NDPS Act.
The court ruled that statements of co-accused are inadmissible without corroboration, impacting the prosecution's case for bail under the NDPS Act.
Statements of co-accused are inadmissible without corroboration, and mere association does not establish a prima facie case for bail denial under the NDPS Act.
The court established that confessions from co-accused require corroboration to justify detention, emphasizing the importance of evidence in bail considerations under the NDPS Act.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.