Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(P&H) 295

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
VIKAS BAHL, J.
Gautam Kumar – Appellant
Versus
Union of India through Narcotics Control Bureau, Chandigarh Zonal Unit - Respondent
CRM-M-8596-2023
Decided on : 01-08-2023

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr.Satnam Singh Gill, Advocate
For the Respondent: Ms.Gurmeet Kaur Gill

A confessional statement made before an officer designated under Section 42 or Section 53 of the NDPS Act cannot be the sole basis for conviction without safeguards. Even in cases involving commercial quantity, the accused can be granted bail based on the length of custody. The right to speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India is an important consideration in bail applications.

Headnote:
NDPS Act - Sections 8, 18, 28, 29, 60, 62 - The court refers to Section 67 of the NDPS Act, which deals with the presentation of oneself before an officer. It also cites Section 25 of the Evidence Act, which states that a confessional statement made before a police officer is not admissible as evidence. The court relies on previous judgments that interpret and apply these provisions.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner is seeking regular bail in a case registered under Sections 8, 18, 28, 29, 60, 62 of the NDPS Act. The petitioner has been implicated based on the disclosure statement made by the co-accused, but no recovery of narcotic drugs has been made from the petitioner. The petitioner argues that the disclosure statement is inadmissible as evidence. The petitioner has been in custody for a significant period, and the trial is likely to take time. The petitioner has no previous involvement in NDPS Act cases. The prosecution opposes bail, citing the recovery of narcotic drugs from the co-accused and the petitioner's involvement in other cases.
Finding of the Court:
The court examines the facts of the case and the arguments presented by both parties. It refers to previous judgments that establish that a confessional statement made before an officer designated under Section 42 or Section 53 of the NDPS Act cannot be the sole basis for conviction without safeguards. The court also considers the length of custody and the likelihood of a lengthy trial. It notes that the petitioner has not been named in the secret information and no recovery has been made from the petitioner. The primary evidence against the petitioner is the disclosure statement of the co-accused. The court concludes that the petitioner should be granted bail based on the length of custody and the absence of evidence linking the petitioner to the narcotic drugs.
Ratio Decidendi: The court holds that a confessional statement made before an officer designated under Section 42 or Section 53 of the NDPS Act cannot be the sole basis for conviction without safeguards. The court also establishes that even in cases involving commercial quantity, the accused can be granted bail based on the length of custody. The court emphasizes the importance of considering the right to speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
Result: The court grants regular bail to the petitioner on the condition of furnishing bail/surety bonds and complying with certain conditions. The court clarifies that this decision does not express any opinion on the merits of the case, and the trial will proceed independently.

JUDGMENT :

VIKAS BAHL, J.

1. This is the second petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in FIR/NCB Crime no. 62 dated 20.09.2021 registered under Sections 8, 18, 28, 29, 60, 62 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act 1985 (in short “NDPS Act”) at Police Station NCB, Chandigarh, U.T.

2. Brief facts of the present case that the Union of India through Ajit Pal Singh, Intelligence Officer, Narcotics Control Bureau, Chandigarh Zonal Unit had filed a complaint against the petitioner and co-accused Gurminder Singh under Sections 8, 18, 28, 29 & 62 of the NDPS Act in the Court of Judge, Special Court, under NDPS Act, 1985, Patiala. As per the allegations in the complaint, secret information was received on 19.09.2021 at around 08:00 PM by Sanjeev Kumar, Intelligence Officer, NCB, which was reduced into writing and the same was to the effect that Gurminder Singh, co-accused of the petitioner was involved in the trafficking of opium and that he would be bringing a consignment of opium in vehicle bearing no.PB-23-T-1041 from Rohtak to Nabha and he would cross the Bhagat Singh Chowk on Narwana-Patran road between 09:00 hours to 10:00 hours on 20.09.2021. Accordingly, a team was constituted and Gurminder Singh along with one Prabhveer Singh, who was travelling in the above mentioned vehicle, were apprehended by the NCB team. It was found that Gurminder Singh was carrying consignment of opium in the vehicle which upon weighing, came to be 2.625 kgs (commercial quantity stipulated for the same starts from 2.5 kgs). On the statement of accused Gurminder Singh to the effect that he had purchased opium from the present petitioner, the present petitioner was implicated as an accused in the present case. In paragraph 28 of the complaint, it has been stated that the petitioner, in pursuance of notice issued under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, had presented himself before Ajit Pal Singh, Intelligence Officer on 21.09.2021 and at that time, the petitioner was carrying a black coloured bag with “TYCOON” written on it and had given Rs.45,000/- which he was carrying in the bag to said Ajit Pal Singh, Intelligence Officer. The disclosure statement of the petitioner was also recorded.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was not named in the secret information and no recovery of any narcotic drugs has been effected from him. It is further submitted that the petitioner has no concern with the vehicle bearing no. PB-23-T-1041 in which the narcotic drugs were allegedly being carried by the co-accused. It is stated that even as per para 28 of the complaint (page 26 of the paper book), the petitioner had presented himself on 21.09.2021 before Ajit Pal Singh, Intelligence Officer and as per the version given in the complaint, he himself had handed over Rs.45,000/- to the said Investigating Officer. It is further stated that there is no evidence to corroborate the fact that the said amount of Rs.45,000/- was drug money. It is submitted that the petitioner has been implicated solely on the basis of disclosure statement made by the co-accused and his own disclosure statement which had been recorded in custody and is thus, inadmissible in evidence. It is further submitted that even after the arrest of the petitioner, no narcotic drugs have been recovered from the petitioner. On the said aspect, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled as “Tofan Singh Vs. State of Tamil Nadu” reported as 2021(1) RCR (Criminal) 1, order passed by Coordinate Bench of this Court dated 17.06.2020 in CRM-M-12051-2020 titled “Mewa Singh Vs. State of Punjab”, and order of Coordinate Bench dated 16.07.2021 passed in CRMM- 12997-2020 titled as “Daljit Singh Vs. State of Haryana” to contend that in a case where the petitioner is sought to