Confessions of co-accused are inadmissible without corroboration, and circumstantial evidence alone does not establish guilt in narcotics cases.

Headnote:(A) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Sections 8, 9A, 22(c), 23(c), 25, 27A, 28, 29 and 30 - Bail application under NDPS Act - Allegations of involvement in trafficking of Methamphetamine based solely on confessions of co-accused - Court emphasized the inadmissibility of such confessions under Section 25 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872, lacking independent corroboration (Para 3) - Procedures followed by the investigating agency scrutinized, raising concerns about the treatment of co-accused and failure to establish direct links to the petitioner (Paras 11, 13, 25) - Court ruled out the admissibility of statements leading to disclosures made post-recovery, noting that statements must lead to discovery under Section 27 for admission (Paras 20, 22) - Previous judgments cited emphasizing evidentiary standards and necessity for corroboration (Paras 30, 31) - Petitioner released on bail on conditions set forth (Para 34).

(B) Bail - Grant of bail in NDPS cases - Requirements of Section 37 of NDPS Act were satisfied based on lack of substantial evidence connecting the petitioner to the crime and consideration of the petitioner's clean antecedents (Paras 31, 32).

Facts of the case:
The petitioner was implicated based on the alleged recovery of contraband from another's residence and confessions from co-accused, but there was no direct evidence linking him to the delivery of the drugs nor any recovery from him (Paras 1, 2, 21).

Findings of Court:
The prosecution failed to establish a prima facie case against the petitioner; hence bail was granted (Paras 31, 32).

Issues: The main issues included the admissibility of confessions by co-accused and whether there was sufficient evidence to justify denial of bail (Paras 1, 21).

Ratio Decidendi: The court maintained that confessions of co-accused are not admissible without corroboration, and mere circumstantial evidence does not suffice to establish guilt (Paras 16, 20, 30).

Result: Petitioner's bail application granted; released on specific conditions.

Table of Content
1. bail application under ndps act. (Para 1 , 2)
2. defense arguments on lack of evidence. (Para 3 , 4 , 6 , 7 , 8)
3. prosecution evidence supporting case. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12)
4. legal standards on statement admissibility. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17)
5. clarification on admissibility of disclosures. (Para 20 , 21 , 22)
6. court's skepticism on investigative agency actions. (Para 23 , 24 , 25 , 26)
7. investigative agency's burden of proof explained. (Para 27 , 28 , 29 , 30)
8. decision to grant bail and conditions outlined. (Para 31 , 32 , 33 , 34)
9. final order on bail application. (Para 35 , 36 , 37)

JUDGMENT :

JASMEET SINGH, J.

1. This is a petition seeking bail in NCB Case No. VIII/01/DZU/2024 registered under Sections 8, 9A, 22(c), 23(c), 25, 27A, 28, 29 and 30 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (“NDPS Act”) PS NCB-DZU.

2. The allegations against the petitioner are that 12.16 Kgs of Methamphetamine was recovered from the house of one Mr. Gaurav Singh Chouhan on 22.01.2024 in a blue/firozi bag which has been transported by the petitioner to Delhi on 20.01.2024 and delivered to Mr. Gaurav Singh Chouhan by one Mr. Gurcharan Singh @ Sweety and Gurpreet Singh @ Jojo at Ranibagh, New Delhi. It is further alleged that the aforesaid bag was delivered at the instructions of the petitioner.

3. Mr Hariharan, learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has no connection with any of the co-accused persons or any of the contraband allegedly recovered in the present case. The petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present matter only on the basis of confessions of the co-accused without any independent corroborating evidence. The said confessions are inadmissible in evidence and cannot be relied upon. Reliance is placed on catena of judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court to urge that the confessions are hit by section 25 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (“IEA”).

4. He further submits that the respondent did not get accused No. 3 i.e. Mr Gaurav Singh Chouhan identified by Gurcharan Singh @ Sweety and Gurpreet Singh @ Jojo pursuant to his arrest.

5. It is the case of the respondent that the petitioner was allegedly working at the behest of accused No. 9 i.e. Mr Manpreet Singh. However, the respondent failed to establish any link between the two. Further, Mr. Manpreet Singh in his statement specifically denies of having any knowledge of the alleged delivery on 20.01.2024.

6. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner further submits that Mr. Gaurav Singh Chouhan in his disclosure statement has allegedly stated that the 12.16 kgs of Methamphetamine recovered from his residence was delivered to him on 20.01.2024 in a “black coloured bag” by two boys near Laxmi Kitchen. The said disclosure statement cannot be relied upon as thesame was recorded on 23.01.2024 i.e. subsequent to the recovery of the contraband from his residence on 22.01.2024. Further, Gurpreet Singh @ Jojo and Gurcharan Singh @ Sweety states that they were unaware of the contents of the bag. Hence the respondent failed to meet the requirements of section 27 of Evidence Act. Reliance is placed on Pulukuri Kottayya v. King Emperor , 1946 SCC OnLine PC 47 and Amin Chand v. State , 1986 SCC OnLine Del 344.

7. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the statements of Mr. Gaurav Singh Chouhan are not admissible under Section 27 of IEA. The recovery of about 12 kgs of Methamphetamine had already taken place prior to the statements of Mr Gaurav Singh, hence, the said statement has have not led to the discovery of any "fact" for it to be admissible under section 27 of IEA. The contents of the statements in relation to the past use of the said recovery and how it travelled to Gaurav Singh, are inadmissible in evidence, for being mental facts, not being covered under Section 27 IEA. In this regard, reliance is placed on Jasbir Singh vs. Narcotics Control Bureau , (2023) SCC OnLine Del 134.

8. Lastly, he submits that the char