IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU
Sanjay Dhar, J.
Mohd Rafiq Khande – Petitioner
Versus
Union of India through Intelligence Officer, Narcotic Control Bureau – Respondent
CRM(M) No. 316 of 2023 c/w Bail App No. 101 of 2023
Decided On : 02-03-2024
NDPS Act - Charges framed against petitioner for offences under Sections 8/20/29 and 60 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Summary of Acts and Sections: NDPS Act, 1985 - Sections 8, 20, 29, 60 - The court discussed the admissibility of confessional statements, the evidence of recovery of contraband, and the application of Section 37 of the NDPS Act in denying bail to the petitioner.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the order of framing of charges and the rejection of his bail application on the grounds of lack of recovery from his possession and inadmissibility of confessional statements.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that while the confessional statements were inadmissible, there was evidence of the petitioner's presence with co-accused in a vehicle where contraband was recovered, as well as call detail records showing communication with the main accused. The court upheld the framing of charges and denied bail based on the application of Section 37 of the NDPS Act.
Issues: Admissibility of confessional statements, evidence of petitioner's involvement, and application of Section 37 of the NDPS Act for bail.
Ratio Decidendi: The confessional statements were deemed inadmissible, but the evidence of the petitioner's presence with co-accused and communication with the main accused provided sufficient grounds for framing charges. The court applied Section 37 of the NDPS Act to deny bail to the petitioner.
Final Decision: The petitions were dismissed, and the court upheld the framing of charges and denial of bail to the petitioner.
JUDGMENT :
1. By this common judgment, above-titled two petitions filed by the petitioner, one challenging order dated 04.03.2023 passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Jammu (hereinafter to be referred as “the trial court”), whereby charges for offences under Sections 8/20/29 and 60 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for brevity “the NDPS Act”) have been framed against the petitioner and other seeking bail in a case arising out of complaint bearing NCB Crime No. 16/2022 dated 01.07.2022, registered with the Narcotics Control Bureau, Jammu for offences under Sections 8/20/29 and 60 of the NDPS Act, are proposed to be disposed of.
2. As per the case projected in the complaint filed by the respondent- NCB against the petitioner and co-accused, on 01.07.2022, an information was received by the officials of the NCB that co-accused, Ghulam Mohiud-Din Shah, Ghulam Nabi Lone, Mohd Shafi Dar, Raju Ash Mohd alongwith the petitioner were carrying huge quantity of narcotic substance i.e. charas, concealed inside the spare tyre in Vehicle bearing registration No. JK05F 2441 (i10 Hyundai) that was proceeding from Srinagar towards Jammu. On the basis of this information, a case was registered. Thereafter, the NCB team, at about 0220 hours, intercepted the car bearing registration No. JK05F 2441 near Petrol Pump, Gumat Chowk, Jammu. After a few minutes, another car bearing registration No. DL06CP 6592 also reached the spot and both the cars were surrounded by the NCB team. While the petitioner and co-accused, Ghulam Mohiud Din Shah, Mohd Shafi Dar and Raju were found sitting inside the vehicle bearing No. JK05F 2441, co-accused Javaid Ahmad Parray, Tanveer Ahmad Qurashi and Mohd Akbar Khan were found travelling in vehicle bearing No. DL06CP 6592. Both the vehicles were subjected to search and from vehicle bearing No. JK05F-2441, five packets were recovered from the spare tyre of the car. These packets were found to contain 09.700 Kgs. of charas. However, nothing was recovered from the other car. The recovered charas was seized, the samples were prepared and sealed and panchnama was also prepared.
3. During investigation of the case, accused Ghulam Mohiud-Din Shah disclosed that charas was received by him from unknown person from Srinagar and that it was to be delivered to co-accused Tanveer Ahmad Qurashi. He further disclosed that he was to get an amount of Rs. 11 lacs upon delivery of the charas to the designated person. Similarly, the statement of accused Ghulam Nabi Lone was also recorded, who disclosed that he had associated with and accompanied accused Ghulam Mohiud Din Shah, the main supplier of the charas. The statement of accused, Mohd Shafi Dar was also recorded, in which he admitted that he is an associate of Ghulam Mohiud Din Shah and Ghulam Nabi Lone. The statement of the petitioner under Section 67 of the NDPS Act was also recorded. He also admitted his association with Ghulam Mohidin Shah, Ghulam Nabi Lone and Mohd Shafi Dar. The statement of co-accused Raju was also recorded and he also admitted his association with other accused. Similarly, statements of accused Tanveer Ahmad Qurashi, Javaid Ahmd Parray and Mohd Akbar Khan were also recorded, who all admitted having association with other co-accused in the matter of transportation of the recovered charas.
4. During investigation of the case, the FSL report in respect of the samples of the recovered charas was obtained and call detail records of the mobile numbers of the accused were also obtained. It was found that the accused were using mobile numbers 9906725102, 9541172944, 9596088202, 9906701229 and 9622883690. The call detail records with effect from 01.05.2022 to 01.07.2022 were obtained and it was found that accused Tanveer Ahmad Qurashi, Javaid Ahmad Parray, Ghulam Nabi Lone, Mohd Shafi Dar and Ghulam Mohiud Din Shah were in constant touch with each other. Upon analysis of call details of mobile No. 7889521917, that was registered in the
The admissibility of evidence, including confessional statements, and the application of Section 37 of the NDPS Act for bail, were central legal points established in the judgment.
The court established that confessional statements of co-accused are inadmissible against others, but the presence of a commercial quantity of narcotics and the implications of conspiracy under the N....
The presumption of conscious possession applies in drug cases, necessitating the petitioner to disprove involvement in the crime to grant bail under the NDPS Act.
Co-accused's confessional statement to police inadmissible against petitioner; financial transactions insufficient for prima facie nexus in commercial quantity NDPS case, satisfying Section 37 twin c....
The need for substantial probable causes for believing that the accused is not guilty of the alleged offence and the deleterious impact of narcotic drugs on society.
In NDPS commercial quantity cases, co-accused confessional statements (inadmissible under Evidence Act Section 25 & CrPC 162) and financial transactions alone insufficient to deny bail under Section ....
Point of Law : NDPS Act – Search and seizer of charas – Grant of Bail - Petitioner has already suffered more than 11 months of incarceration which amounts to pretrial detention.
The court ruled that co-accused statements are inadmissible evidence, and insufficient evidence exists to justify continued detention, leading to bail being granted with specific conditions.
Co-accused disclosure statements inadmissible under Evidence Act for NDPS bail denial; call records and CCTV vehicle association insufficient for prima facie case or Section 37 rigour post charge-she....
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.