N THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH At JAMMU
M.A. Chowdhary, J.
Mohd. Anayat - Appellant
Vs.
Union Territory of J&K - Respondent
Bail App No. 271 of 2022
Decided On : 23-02-2023
NDPS Act - Bail Application - Section 8/20/29 NDPS Act, Section 50 Excise Act - Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu (2021) 4 SCC 1, State by (NCB) Bengaluru v. Pallulabid Ahmad Arimutta & Anr. (2022) 2 SCALE 14
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought bail in a case involving charges under sections 8/20/29 NDPS Act and Section 50 Excise Act. The petitioner argued that he was falsely implicated based on an inadmissible confessional statement made by a co-accused. The respondent opposed the bail application citing the gravity of the accusation and the nature of evidence.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner was charged solely based on the statement of a co-accused, which was inadmissible as per legal precedents. Therefore, the court granted bail to the petitioner with certain conditions.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner, charged based on a co-accused's inadmissible statement, was entitled to bail.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on legal precedents such as Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu and State by (NCB) Bengaluru v. Pallulabid Ahmad Arimutta & Anr. to establish that a confessional statement made by a co-accused cannot form the sole basis for denying bail.
Final Decision: The court allowed the bail application and admitted the petitioner to bail with specific conditions.
JUDGEMENT
1. Petitioner through the medium of this bail application under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeks grant of bail in his favour in a case titled "UT of J&K v. Sudesh Singh & Anr.", pending on the files of Sessions Court Reasi, arising out of FIR No. 55/2019 registered at Police Station Reasi for the commission of offences punishable under sections 8/20/29 NDPS Act and 50 Excise Act.
2. It has been pleaded that the petitioner has been falsely implicated by the respondent merely on the basis of an inadmissible confessional statement made by co-accused recorded under section 67 of NDPS Act and there being no other evidence, as such, he is entitled to be admitted to bail. It has been further asserted that petitioner had moved an application for grant of bail before the trial court, however, the same was rejected vide order dated 26.07.2022 passed in Bail App No. 435/2022.
3. Pursuant to notice, respondent filed objections to the application asserting therein that the bail application moved by the petitioner has already been rejected by the trial court and that he is not entitled to bail in view of the gravity of the accusation, nature of evidence available and severity of punishment provide for the offences under sections 8/20/29 of the NDPS Act of which he had been charge sheeted. It was prayed to reject his petition.
4. Heard and considered.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that since no contraband had been recovered from the petitioner, he has been implicated in the case only on the basis of confessional statement made by some person from whom the alleged contraband has been recovered and that in view of the only evidence in the form of confessional statement by the co-accused, the petitioner is entitled to be admitted to bail in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in "Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu", reported as (2021) 4 SCC 1 and " State by (NCB) Bengaluru v. Pallulabid Ahmad Arimutta & Anr.", reported as (2022) 2 SCALE 14 and prayed that the law laid down in both these cases by the Apex Court is squarely applicable to the facts of the petitioner's case and prayed that the petitioner be admitted to bail.
6. Learned counsel for the respondent, ex adverso, vehemently opposed the grant of bail in favour of the petitioner arguing that petitioner is involved in the commission of serious offences punishable under the NDPS Act being a drug smuggler as he has been found during investigation that he had supplied contraband to the other accused for its sale to the young children to make them addicts. He has further argued that no evidence has been led in the case and the accused who had been absconding earlier, with great deal of difficulty has been arrested and vide order dated 28.05.2022 had been charge-sheeted for the commission of offences punishable under sections 8/20 NDPS Act by the trial Court. It was prayed that the application be rejected and plea of bail be turned down.
7. Factual matrix of the case is that police party from Police Station Reasi, while patrolling on 29.03.2019 at a place near Nau Devi Mandir, received an information from reliable sources that a shop keeper, namely, Balbir Chand of Karua Tehsil Katra was involved in illegal sale of charas which he had kept in his house and his shop. Police party raided his shop, found one Maruti Car bearing Registration No. JK02X-0696 parked inside the shop. During search, they found that the shop keeper along with another person namely, Sudesh Singh of Dharanteh Thakrakote, who worked with said shop keeper Balbir Chand, was present in the shop and during search, 07 bundles of polythene containing 48 pieces of charas, 05 bottles of whisky 750 ml each, 09 bottles of Eagles XXX Rum 750ml each, 07 bottles of ob whisky 375 ml each, 05 bottles of XXX Rum 375 ml each were recovered from there. Besides this, 07 bundles of polythene containing 49 pieces of charas and an amount of Rs. 43,2000/- were recovered from the vehicle in
Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu reported as (2021) 4 SCC 1
State by (NCB) Bengaluru v. Pallulabid Ahmad Arimutta & Anr.
Point of Law : In the absence of there being any other material available with the prosecution connecting the petitioner with the commission of offence alleged against him, except the statement of th....
Confessional statements recorded under Section 67 of the N.D.P.S. Act are inadmissible as evidence, necessitating admissible evidence for trial.
The admissibility of statements recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act and the consideration of circumstances for granting bail despite the severity of punishment.
In bail proceedings under the NDPS Act, statements from co-accused require corroborative evidence; absence of substantial direct evidence may warrant bail.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a confessional statement cannot be the sole substantive evidence and must be corroborated by other evidence. Additionally, the conditions for ....
Confessional statements under Section 67 NDPS inadmissible for bail; mere call detail records of contact without recovery or corroboration insufficient to refuse bail under Section 37 twin conditions....
Bail should not be denied solely based on co-accused statements without sufficient evidence; the presumption of innocence persists until proven guilty, emphasizing that the general rule favors bail.
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.