GRANTS BAIL IN NDPS CASE, HOLDS DISCLOSURE STATEMENTS ALONE INSUFFICIENT FOR CONVICTION

Bail | Mere disclosure statements without independent corroboration do not satisfy the stringent requirements of Section 37 of the NDPS Act: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT

The Punjab and Haryana High Court, in a significant ruling on bail under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act), granted relief to Anil Kumar, accused under Sections 22, 29, 61, and 85 of the Act. Justice Anoop Chitkara held that the stringent bail conditions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act must be satisfied by the prosecution, and mere disclosure statements by co-accused, without independent corroboration, do not meet this threshold.

The case against Anil Kumar was based on the seizure of 38 bottles of cough syrup and 250 tablets from two co-accused, who named him as their supplier. The prosecution relied on their disclosure statements and call detail records to implicate him. However, the Court found that there was no direct recovery from Kumar, nor was there independent evidence linking him to drug trafficking.

Disclosure Statements Not Enough Without Recovery

Justice Chitkara, relying on the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling in Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2021) 4 SCC 1, reiterated that confessional statements made to police officers are inadmissible as evidence. He observed:

“The evidence collected so far consists of disclosure statements without any discovery of fact. However, the calls between the petitioner and the co-accused have not been explained by the petitioner.”

He further noted that call detail records, which merely show communication between the accused and co-accused, cannot be conclusive proof of guilt in the absence of evidence proving that these calls were related to the alleged drug trade.

Right to Speedy Trial Under Article 21: Prolonged Custody Justifies Bail

The Court emphasized that prolonged pre-trial detention violates the fundamental right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution. Noting that the petitioner had been incarcerated for over a year without any substantial progress in the trial, Justice Chitkara cited the Supreme Court’s ruling in Tajmul SK v. State of West Bengal, CrA 3047-2024: “We are inclined to set aside the impugned order only on the premise that right to speedy trial is a fundamental right. Despite the fact that the appellant has been under incarceration for more than one and a half years, the trial is yet to start.”

The Court held that bail should not be denied solely on the gravity of allegations, especially when the evidence against the accused is weak.

Judicial Precedents Support Bail in Cases Involving Medicinal Drugs

The Court examined various Supreme Court rulings, including Chitta Biswas v. State of West Bengal, Ismaul Sk v. State of West Bengal, and Indrajit Mondal v. State of West Bengal, where bail was granted due to prolonged incarceration and lack of substantial evidence. Given that the alleged contraband in this case involved medicinal drugs containing alcohol and sugar syrup, Justice Chitkara held that: “Given the nature of medicinal drugs, which contain majority of alcohol and sugar syrup, this Court ignores the criminal history for the purpose of bail, and the pre-trial custody of around one year and three months seems justifiable in the given circumstances.”

Bail Granted With Stringent Conditions to Prevent Misuse

While allowing bail, the Court imposed stringent conditions, requiring Kumar to surrender his firearms and report regularly to the investigating officer. It held that:

“Restricting firearms would instill confidence in the victim(s), their families, and society; it would also restrain the accused from influencing the witnesses and repeating the offense.”

Additionally, the Court directed Kumar to furnish personal identification details, including Aadhar and passport information, and barred him from tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses.

Upholding Constitutional Rights While Balancing Statutory Restrictions

The judgment reinforces the principle that stringent provisions of the NDPS Act should not override fundamental rights, particularly when the prosecution’s evidence is weak. By granting bail while imposing strict conditions, the Court struck a balance between individual liberty and the State’s interest in curbing drug-related offenses.

This ruling is expected to serve as a significant precedent for similar cases where accused persons are detained based solely on disclosure statements without corroborative evidence.

Date of Decision: January 30, 2025