The main legal point established in the judgment is the admissibility of evidence, particularly confessional statements under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, and the implications of the Supreme Court's observations on the admissibility of evidence.

JUDGMENT :

SUDIP AHLUWALIA, J.

1. The instant petition has been filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking regular bail on behalf of the petitioner in case Crime No.13 dated 14.02.2020, under Sections 8, 21, 22, 25, 29 & 50 of the Narcotic Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 registered at Police Station Narcotic Control Bureau Chandigarh, after such bail was declined by the Ld. Judge, Special Court/Duty Judge, SAS Nagar (Mohali) on 05.06.2020 vide his impugned order Annexure P-2.

2. The case of the prosecution /Narcotics Control Bureau, Chandigarh is that the Petitioner and his father/ co-accused Mandeep Singh were found in possession of 520 grams of heroin without any permit or license while they were travelling in car No. PB-11-AY-6043 and were arrested on 14.02.2020.

3. It has been mentioned in the petition that the aforesaid story set forth by the prosecution is highly improbable. It has also been mentioned that although the Respondent had prior information regarding the contraband, but no preparation were made to join the Executive Magistrate or any other independent witness before effecting the alleged recovery. It has been further contended in the petition that admittedly according to the prosecution the Petitioner was sitting in the rear seat of the car and was not in conscious possession of any contraband. The car was allegedly being driven by his father Mandeep Singh and the alleged recovery was effected from the dash board of the vehicle. As such there is no question of any recovery from the conscious possession of the Petitioner.

4. The bail prayer has been opposed on behalf of the Respondent NCB, Chandigarh which has filed its detailed reply dated 26.10.2020. It has been contended on behalf of the Respondent that the Petitioner is not entitled to be released on bail since the recovery of the contraband in the form of 520 grams of heroin was effected from the conscious possession of the Petitioner and the co-accused Mandeep Singh, who is his father, in a situation when the said contraband was being trafficked from Delhi. It has further been submitted that the Petitioner in his statement recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act had admitted the manner and factum of such recovery from his conscious possession. Besides, it is the assertion of the Respondent side that notwithstanding the fact that the Petitioner was allegedly travelling as a rider on the rear seat of the car in which the contraband was being allegedly carried, still his complacency/ involvement in such trafficking is established from his talks with a Nigerian handler/supplier of the contraband over phone and WhatsApp communications. Photographs of the screen shots from the mobile phone of the Petitioner bearing No. 9592522147 regarding his interaction on WhatsApp with the supplier of Nigerian origin having mobile No. +27710070586 has been filed along with the reply of the Respondent as Annexure R-2. It may be mentioned that when the matter had earlier come up for hearing before this Court on 06.04.2021, this Court had directed the Respondent No.1 to place the actual photographs referred to in the chat Annexure R-2, and also appropriate material to show that the mobile phone/ Sim Card bearing No. 9592522147 belongs to the Petitioner.

5. In response, the Respondent filed its original reply by way of affidavit of Kumar Manohar Manjul, Intelligence Officer, NCB Chandigarh, along with copy of the Petitioner's statement recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act and detailed photographs of the WhatsApp chat in between the Mobile No. +27710070586 and the phone allegedly seized from the Petitioner for the period between 08.02.2020 till 14.02.2020, which photographs had not been appended to the reply and Annexures earlier received by way of Email in the year 2020.

6. Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner, however, now seeks bail by submitting that his client is a young boy who had just crossed the age of 18 years a few days before the relevant date, and