MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

High Court Grants Bail In NDPS: Confession Before NCB Officers Deemed Inadmissible

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench, extends bail in NRX drug trafficking case, emphasizes non-commercial quantity and reliance on Supreme Court precedents.

The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, has granted bail to Abhishek Mishra, implicated in the illegal possession and trafficking of NRX drugs. The court's decision, delivered by Justice Rajesh Singh Chauhan, highlights the inadmissibility of confessional statements made to NCB officers and the non-commercial quantity of the drugs involved.

Abhishek Mishra was arrested on October 7, 2023, in connection with the illegal shipment of NRX drugs, including Alprazolam, Tramadol, and Buprenorphine tablets. The arrest followed a raid on September 8, 2023, based on a tip-off received by the Deputy Narcotics Commissioner in Lucknow. The seized consignment, intended for a fake medical firm, was intercepted at Trackon Courier Service. Mishra, a courier supplier, was accused based on the confession of a co-accused, recorded by NCB officers.

Non-Commercial Quantity Consideration: The court examined the statutory conditions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act and relevant Supreme Court rulings. It noted the seized Alprazolam tablets attributed to Mishra weighed approximately 14.1 grams, classifying them as a non-commercial quantity. This classification influenced the court’s decision to grant bail. "The applicant, without prior criminal history and having a role similar to the co-accused granted bail, is entitled to bail on parity basis," the court observed.

Admissibility of Confessional Statements: Central to the court's decision was the inadmissibility of confessions made to NCB officers under Section 67 of the NDPS Act. Citing the Supreme Court's ruling in Tofan Singh, the court stated, "Confessions to NCB officers are inadmissible under Article 20(3) of the Constitution." This legal precedent significantly impacted the case.

To ensure trial cooperation and prevent misuse, the court imposed several conditions, including a personal bond, two sureties, mandatory attendance at critical trial phases, and a prohibition on leaving the country without court permission. Any breach of these conditions could result in bail revocation.

The judgment detailed the principles for evaluating evidence under the NDPS Act. The court emphasized that Mishra’s implication rested solely on an inadmissible confession by a co-accused. "The applicant’s involvement appears tenuous at this stage, and thus, the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act do not apply," the court noted.

Justice Rajesh Singh Chauhan remarked, "The quantity of drugs attributed to the applicant is non-commercial, and considering the Supreme Court's interpretation, the confession before NCB officers is inadmissible."

The High Court's decision to grant bail to Abhishek Mishra underscores the judiciary's commitment to upholding constitutional protections and ensuring that convictions in drug trafficking cases are based on admissible evidence. This ruling is likely to influence future NDPS Act cases, particularly regarding the admissibility of confessional statements and the interpretation of non-commercial quantities.

 

Date of Decision:30th May 2024

Abhishek Mishra vs. Union of India Through Central Bureau Of Narcotics Lko.

Latest Legal News