SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Del) 391

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Vikas Mahajan, J.
Habibullah Nabi Zada - Appellant
Versus
N. C. B. - Respondent
Bail Appln. 2645 of 2022
Decided On : 26-02-2024

Advocates appeared:
Mr. Gautam Khazanchi and Mr. Vinayak Chawla, Advocates, for the Petitioner.
Mr. Subhash Bansal, Senior. SC with Mr. Shashwat Bansal, Advocate, for the Respondent.

Headnote:

NDPS Act - Bail Application - Section 439 r/w Section 482 of Cr.P.C - Sections 8/21/23/29 NDPS Act - [Section 37 of NDPS Act, Section 67 of NDPS Act, Section 25 of the Evidence Act] - The court discussed the application of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, admissibility of statements under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, and the interpretation of Section 25 of the Evidence Act in relation to confessional statements. The court's decision was influenced by the interpretation of these legal provisions and their application to the facts of the case.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner sought bail under Section 439 r/w Section 482 of Cr.P.C in a case under Sections 8/21/23/29 NDPS Act. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner and a co-accused had swallowed drug capsules and were intercepted at the airport. The prosecution claimed recovery of heroin from the accused.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the quantity of contraband recovered from the petitioner and the co-accused could not be clubbed together to invoke the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act. The court also held that the statements under Section 67 of the NDPS Act were inadmissible. Additionally, the court considered the petitioner's prolonged incarceration and the lack of incriminating material to establish conspiracy.

Issues: The issues involved the application of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, admissibility of statements under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, and the sufficiency of evidence to establish conspiracy.

Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation and application of legal provisions such as Section 37 of the NDPS Act, Section 67 of the NDPS Act, and Section 25 of the Evidence Act. The court also considered the petitioner's prolonged incarceration and the lack of incriminating material to establish conspiracy.

Final Decision: The court granted regular bail to the petitioner, emphasizing that the quantity of contraband recovered from the co-accused could not be added to the quantity recovered from the petitioner to invoke the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act. The court also held that the statements under Section 67 of the NDPS Act were inadmissible and considered the petitioner's prolonged incarceration and the lack of incriminating material to establish conspiracy.

JUDGMENT

Vikas Mahajan, J.

1. The present petition has been filed under Section 439 r/w Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as Cr.P.C) seeking grant of regular bail to the petitioner in Crime No. VIII/02/DZU/2020 under Sections 8/21/23/29 NDPS Act instituted by the NCB.

2. Vide order dated 05.09.2022, notice was issued in the bail application of the petitioner and the respondent/NCB was directed to file a status report. The respondent has filed a status report dated 31.10.2022, which forms part of the record.

3. The case of the prosecution as borne out from the status report/reply is that on the basis of a secret information dated 28.12.2019, Habibullah Nabi Zada (the petitioner herein) and Abdul Wadood Ahmadi (co-accused), who arrived by Flight No. FG-313 of Arena Airlines at T- 3, IGI Airport, were intercepted near the exit of terminal building.

4. Upon enquiry, both the suspects voluntarily disclosed that they had swallowed 15 drug capsules each. Thereafter they were brought to Safdarjung Hospital, where the Doctor on duty confirmed about foreign body in the stomach of both of them. Accordingly, they were admitted in the said Hospital for medical support in ejection of the said foreign bodies.

5. Thereafter, upon ejection of the foreign bodies from the stomach of the accused persons on 03.01.2020, the NCB Team alongwith Doctor on duty and interpreter Ms. Puspa, in the presence of independent witnesses, counted all capsules, cut-opened each capsule and then tested one by one each capsule.

6. Firstly, upon testing set of 15 capsules eased out by Habibullah Nabi Zada, the same were found to contain off-white-powdery substance in each capsule. When tested, the powder gave positive result for Heroin and it was the same substance in all capsules.

7. On weighing the powdery substance compressed in said 15 capsules, it came out 225 Grams. Thereafter, second set of 15 capsules eased out by Abdul Wadood Ahmadi were also cut opened and upon testing, each capsule was found to contain similar type of substance and tested for Heroin. On weighing, the substance from said 15 capsules weighed 225 grams Heroin.

8. It is in this backdrop that the present case was registered by the respondent/prosecution and the accused persons including the present petitioner came to be arrested on 03.01.2020.

9. Mr. Gautam Khazanchi, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, at the outset submits that the petitioner is a farmer belonging to a poor segment of the society having family comprising of wife and 07 children, who are dependent on the petitioner for their survival.

10. On merits, he submits that the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act are not applicable in the present case and the prosecution has erroneously attributed the weight of the total contraband to the petitioner to allege that 450 grams have been recovered in the present case, which is a commercial quantity.

11. He contends that the alleged recovery from the stomach of the petitioner is only 225 grams, which is an intermediate quantity and thus, the petitioner is not required to meet the threshold under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.

12. He submits that the recovery made from the stomach of co-accused cannot be attributed to the petitioner since the petitioner did not have the conscious/physical possession of the 225 grams of heroin which has been allegedly recovered from the stomach of the co-accused. In these circumstances, the petitioner could not have exercised any control or dominion over the alleged heroin which was allegedly recovered from the stomach of the co-accused. To support his aforesaid contention, the learned counsel relied upon the judgments of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in Amit Dhanak v. State of Haryana, CRM-M-33684-2020, P&H HC, Sukhwinder Singh v. State of Punjab, CRM-M-13534-2022, P&H HC, Sukhdev Singh v. State of Punjab, CRM-M-53872-2021(O&M), P&H HC.

13. He submits that case set up by the prosecution that the petitioner

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top