Bail | Right to Speedy Trial is a Fundamental Right Under Article 21: PH High Court    |     Postal Department’s Power to Enhance Penalties Time-Barred, Rules Allahabad High Court    |     Tenants Cannot Cross-Examine Landlords Unless Relationship is Disputed: Madras High Court    |     NDPS | Conscious Possession Extends to Vehicle Drivers: Telangana High Court Upholds 10-Year Sentence in Ganja Trafficking Case    |     Aid Reduction Of Without Due Process Unlawful: Rajasthan High Court Restores Full Grants for Educational Institutions    |     Assessment of Notional Income in Absence of Proof Cannot Be 'Mathematically Precise,' Says Patna High Court    |     NCLT's Resolution Plan Overrides State Tax Claims: Andhra Pradesh High Court Quashes Demands Against Patanjali Foods    |     An Agreement is Not Voidable if the Party Could Discover the Truth with Ordinary Diligence: Calcutta High Court Quashes Termination of LPG Distributorship License    |     Independent Witnesses Contradict Prosecution's Story: Chhattisgarh High Court Acquit Accused in Arson Case    |     Merely Being a Joint Account Holder Does Not Attract Liability Under Section 138 of NI Act:  Gujarat High Court    |     Higher Court Cannot Reappreciate Evidence Unless Perversity is Found: Himachal Pradesh High Court Refused to Enhance Maintenance    |     Perpetual Lease Allows Division of Property: Delhi High Court Affirms Partition and Validity of Purdah Wall    |     "Party Autonomy is the Backbone of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Upholds Sole Arbitrator Appointment Despite Party’s Attempts to Frustrate Arbitration Proceedings    |     Videography in Temple Premises Limited to Religious Functions: Kerala High Court Orders to Restrict Non-Religious Activities on Temple Premises    |     Past Service Must Be Counted for Pension Benefits: Jharkhand High Court Affirms Pension Rights for Daily Wage Employees    |     'Beyond Reasonable Doubt’ Does Not Mean Beyond All Doubt: Madras High Court Upholds Life Imprisonment for Man Convicted of Murdering Mother-in-Law    |    

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.

Similar News