Anticipatory Bail in NDPS Case – Lack of Evidence and Admissibility Issues – Delhi High Court
In a recent judgment, the court granted bail to the accused in a high-profile drug trafficking case, highlighting issues related to evidence and admissibility. The judgment, delivered by Justice Jasmeet Singh on September 18, 2023, emphasized several crucial aspects of the case.
The case, registered under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act), alleged the involvement of the accused in a drug trafficking syndicate. However, the judgment pointed out significant gaps in the prosecution’s case.
Justice Singh observed, “No recoveries of drugs or contraband were made from the Applicant, and Section 29 of the NDPS Act, which deals with criminal conspiracy, was not established.” The court stressed the need for independent, corroborative, and affirmative evidence to support charges under Section 29 of the NDPS Act.
The judgment also addressed the admissibility of statements made under Section 67 of the NDPS Act. It noted that these statements were inadmissible, being subject to a statutory bar, and that no discovery of ‘fact’ was established under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act (IEA). The court pointed out that the prosecution had prior knowledge of certain details, rendering these statements unreliable. Furthermore, the accused had retracted their statements made under Section 67.
Regarding bank transactions presented as evidence, the court found them insufficient to establish guilt. It observed that these transactions appeared to be related to the stock market and friendly relationships. The prosecution failed to provide evidence linking the transactions to the drug syndicate, rendering reliance on bank transactions without corroborative material misplaced.
The judgment also considered the issue of parity. It noted that co-accused individuals with similar circumstances had been granted bail previously. The court applied the “triple test” for bail conditions, addressing concerns of flight risk, tampering with evidence, and influencing witnesses by imposing stringent bail conditions.
High court granted bail to the accused, who had been in custody since October 2021. The judgment highlighted the importance of a robust legal process, the need for substantial evidence to establish charges, and the careful consideration of bail applications in cases with no recoveries of contraband.
Date of Decision: September 18, 2023
MOHD ASLAM CHICKO vs NARCOTICS CONTROL BUREAU THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR GENERAL
