In bail proceedings under the NDPS Act, statements from co-accused require corroborative evidence; absence of substantial direct evidence may warrant bail.

JUDGMENT

Jasmeet Singh, J. (Oral)

CRL.M.A. 7936/2022 & CRL.M.A. 7937/2022-EX.

Allowed subject to all just exceptions.

The applications stand disposed of.

BAIL APPLN. 302/2022

1. This is an application filed seeking bail in the FIR 604/2021 dated 01.12.2021 registered at PS Vasant Kunj, South, Delhi under Section 20/25/29 of the NDPS Act, 1985 and later transferred to and taken over by the Narcotics Cell, Crime Branch, New Delhi.

2. The applicant has not been named in the FIR but has only been named in the second disclosure statement made by the co-accused persons, namely, Mr. Ranjeet Raina and Mr. Gulshan Kumar.

3. It is submitted by Mr. Aggarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner that the recovery was only made from Mr. Ranjeet Raina and the FIR No. 604/2021 dated 01.12.2021 was registered at Vasant Kunj, South Police Station for offences punishable under Section 20/25/29 of the NDPS Act against Mr. Ranjeet Raina and Mr. Gulshan Kumar. Mr. Gulshan Kumar was the driver of the vehicle.

4. As per the disclosure statement of Mr. Ranjeet Raina, he met the applicant on 24th and 25th November and procured the contraband from the applicant. On the said basis, the applicant was arrested from his native village in District Kullu, Himachal Pradesh and brought before the learned Special Judge, NDPS Act, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi and remanded to judicial custody. From 13.12.2021, the applicant has been in judicial custody.

5. It is further stated that the respondent took the applicant to Kullu, Himachal Pradesh on 10.12.2021 for the purpose of conducting investigation. However, there was nothing recovered from him - neither any incriminating material found from the applicant, nor the respondent could trace or identify the source of contraband alleged to have been seized from Mr. Ranjeet Raina.

6. It is, therefore, the case of the applicant that he has no connection with the accused persons and there is nothing in the CDR or whatsapp log, incriminating the applicant with the alleged offences in the FIR 604/2021. In this view of the matter, the present application has been filed.

7. As per the status report filed by the respondent, it is submitted that 9.5 kg of `Charas' was recovered from the accused persons. The accused person disclosed that he had recovered `Charas' from one Mr. Sanjay Negi (applicant), R/o Village Rangri, Himachal Pradesh. On the basis of the CDR, location and information, Mr. Sanjay Negi was arrested from Kullu, Himachal Pradesh. Mr. Sanjay Negi disclosed that he knew Mr. Ranjeet Raina.

8. It is submitted by Mr. Hirein Sharma, learned APP that the applicant is liable in view of Section 29 of the NDPS Act. He further submits that the applicant also has to meet the bar of Section 37 of the NDPS Act.

9. I have heard learned counsels for the parties. It has been observed in Md. Irshad vs. State of NCT of Delhi in Bail APPL. 994/2022 dated 05.05.2022, wherein this Court relied upon the following judgments:

"

4.....

a) 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 provis