Appellate Court Must Re-Appreciate Evidence To Determine Lesser Offence Under Section 386 CrPC If Graver Charge Is Not Sustained: Supreme Court SARFAESI Act | Provisions Override Other Laws Including Principles Of Res Judicata: Supreme Court Right To Information Act | CCTV Footage Cannot Be Provided Directly To Applicant If It Falls Under Section 8(1)(g) Exemptions: Allahabad High Court Section 24 CPC | Convenience Of Wife Is The Paramount Consideration In Transfer Of Matrimonial Proceedings: Andhra Pradesh High Court Inefficient Case Management By State Law Officers Impedes Justice: Allahabad High Court Directs Principal Secretary (Law) To Reform Procedures Section 24 CPC | Convenience Of Wife Is A Primary Consideration For Transfer Of Matrimonial Proceedings, But Virtual Appearance Can Mitigate Hardship: Andhra Pradesh High Court Son Cannot Claim Co-Ownership Or Resist Eviction Based On Alleged Financial Contribution To Property Purchased In Mother’s Name: Delhi High Court Order 33 Rule 1 CPC | Applicant Must Prove Inability To Pay Court Fee With Cogent Evidence; Mere Assertion Of Indigence Is Insufficient: Chhattisgarh High Court Plaintiff Must Establish Independent Right To Possession, Cannot Rely Solely On Lacunae In Defendant’s Evidence: Delhi High Court Successor Cannot Remain Silent: Bombay High Court Upholds Tenant's Right To Purchase Agricultural Land, Rules Rejection Before 1961 Amendment No Bar Single Mother Has Right To Determine Child’s Surname And Alter Biological Father's Name In Birth Certificate: Calcutta High Court Court Can Sanction Professional Fees Of Valuers Exceeding Prescribed Ceiling Post-Assignment: Bombay High Court MACT | Appellate Court Can Reduce Compensation Even If Insurer’s Appeal Challenges Quantum While Claimant Seeks Enhancement: Punjab & Haryana High Court Order VI Rule 17 CPC | Amendment Of Written Statement To Correct Internal Inconsistencies Does Not Amount To Withdrawal Of Admission: Delhi High Court Oral Family Partition Valid Even If Unregistered: Jharkhand High Court Power Of Attorney Lacking Explicit Interest Is Revocable Regardless Of 'Irrevocable' Label: Gujarat High Court DRC Act | Summary Eviction Proceedings Cannot Be Converted Into Extended Litigation By Seeking To File Additional Documents Post-Pleadings: Delhi High Court Financial Institutions Cannot Use 'Goonda-ism' For Repossession: Supreme Court Mandates Compensation For Violation Of Article 21 Motor Vehicles Act: Claimant Cannot Invoke Jurisdiction Of A Forum Where Neither Accident Occurred Nor Defendant Resides: Supreme Court Article 226 | Writ Court Cannot Decide Title Disputes Or Protect Possession If Factual Matrix Is Disputed: Supreme Court Suppression Of Material Facts In Writ Petition Under Article 32 Renders Challenge Non-Maintainable: Supreme Court

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