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

2022 Supreme(J&K) 697

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU
MOHAN LAL, J.
Faruk Chand Badshah Sheikh – Petitioner
Versus
Union India through Intelligence Officer NCB – Respondent
Bail App. No. 104 of 2022
Decided On : 20-12-2022

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: M.A. Bhat.
For the Respondent: Vishal Sharma.

IMPORTANT POINT
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 NDPS Act justify the denial of bail, adhering to the stringent requirements of Section 37.

Headnote:

BAIL - Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act - Sections 8, 20, 29, 37 of NDPS Act; Section 439 of CrPC - The court discussed the provisions of the NDPS Act, particularly Sections 8, 20, 29, and 37, which govern the offenses related to narcotic drugs and the conditions for granting bail. The court emphasized that the confessional statements made under Section 67 of the NDPS Act are inadmissible against co-accused, and the rigorous conditions under Section 37 must be satisfied for bail to be granted. The court's decision was influenced by the interpretation of these sections, particularly regarding the gravity of the offenses and the presumption of guilt in cases involving commercial quantities of narcotics.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner sought bail after being arrested for alleged involvement in drug trafficking under the NDPS Act. He was implicated based on confessional statements from co-accused who were caught with a significant quantity of narcotics. The petitioner argued that no drugs were found in his possession and that the confessions were inadmissible.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the confessional statements of the co-accused were inadmissible against the petitioner. However, it ruled that the substantial quantity of drugs involved and the nature of the charges under the NDPS Act warranted the application of Section 37, which restricts bail in such cases.

Issues: Whether the petitioner is entitled to bail given the serious nature of the charges under the NDPS Act and the implications of the confessional statements made by co-accused.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the rigorous conditions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act apply, and the petitioner did not demonstrate reasonable grounds to believe he was not guilty of the charges. The court reaffirmed that even without direct recovery from the petitioner, the involvement in a conspiracy to deliver narcotics justifies the denial of bail.

Final Decision: The bail petition was disallowed and rejected based on the serious nature of the offenses and the applicability of Section 37 of the NDPS Act.

JUDGMENT :

MOHAN LAL, J.

1. Under the provisions of Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the “Code”), the petitioner/accused has claimed bail in File No. 75/Challan titled, Union of India vs. Mohit Gupta and Ors. for commission of offences under Sections 8/20/29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”). It is averred, that the petitioner is a permanent citizen of India and entitled to protection of his fundamental, statutory and other legal rights in force in Union Territory of J&K petitioner is seeking regular bail in the aforesaid challan/complaint pending in the Court of 2nd Additional Sessions Judge Jammu which rejected the bail application of the petitioner vide order dated 27.01.2022; petitioner was arrested by the officers of the respondent-NCB on the intervening night of 10/11.10.2020 from Mumbai (Maharashtra) on the complaint that a secret information was received by one Sh. Parkash Ram Intelligence Officer of respondent department from the reliable sources on 15.09.2020 at 17.00 hours that two persons namely (i) Sh. Mohit Gupta S/o Sh. Subash Chand Gupta R/o Rohini Delhi, (ii) Sh. Amit Gambhir S/o Sh. Narayan Gambhir R/o Rambagh Delhi and one lady namely Soniya D/o Sh. Roshi R/o Karol Bagh Delhi were carrying narcotic drugs (charas) concealed in a vehicle XUV 500 (Mahindra) Car bearing No. UP14CP-0029 which was coming from Kashmir Valley to Jammu via Ban Toll Plaza Nagrota, the said information was reduced in writing and placed before the Superintendent NCB Jammu who issued the order dated 15.09.2020 for detailment of NCB team to carry out the operation in the area of Ban Toll Plaza Jammu, the NCB team reached Ban Toll Plaza Nagrota and at about 21.30 hours, the above mentioned XUV Mahindra Car was stopped, the vehicle was search and during search, 55 packet wrapped with brown colour tap was recovered from the back side of all the seats of the said car, which were weighed and found having total weight of 56.700 kg. including the packing material and, accordingly, Sh. Mohit Gupta, Sh. Amit Gambhir and Ms. Soniya were taken into custody; the confessional statements of Sh. Mohit Gupta, Sh. Amit Gambhir and Ms. Soniya were recorded on 16.09.2020 under Section 67 of the Act, wherein they disclosed that the alleged drug was to be delivered to the petitioner/accused Mumbai and accordingly, during investigation and follow up action, Sh. Himant Kukreti Intelligence Officer NCB Jammu Zone Unit proceeded from J&K and arrested the petitioner/accused, who was produced before the Court of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate 8th Court Esplanade Mumbai on 12.10.2020 and transit remand was obtained, whereby the petitioner was produced before the Court of learned Principal Sessions Judge Jammu and sent to judicial remand.

It is further averred, that accused 1 to 3 were arrested at Ban Toll Plaza on 15.09.2020 and narcotic drug was found in their vehicle, the petitioner/accused was not accompanying the said accused persons, but was arrested from Mumbai from his house, the said confessional statements of accused 1 to 3 which have involved the petitioner are not admissible in evidence, as the same were not voluntarily, there is sufficient material on record which makes out a prima-facie ground to presume that the petitioner has been framed in the case, as no recovery has been effected from him the petitioner filed an application before the trial Court for grant of bail, but the trial Court has not considered the facts of the case and legal position and has dismissed the bail application of the petitioner vide order dated 27.01.2022.

2. Sh. Vishal Sharma, learned DSGI though not filed response/objections, but has vehemently opposed the bail on the grounds, that huge commercial quantity of contraband charas weighing 56.700 kg has been recovered from the conscious possession of accused 1, 2 & 3 namely Mohit Gupta, Amit Gambhir & Ms. Sonya on 15.09

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