Summary
The NCB seized 50,000 Tramadol tablets from a courier parcel booked by a co-accused, who said he had bought them from the respondent, a medicine shopkeeper at Agra. The respondent's disclosures led the raiding team to a supplier's godown where a large haul of psychotropic tablets, injections and syrups was recovered, though nothing was found at his own shop or home. The Delhi High Court granted him bail, treating the Section 67 statements as inadmissible under Tofan Singh and finding no other incriminating material. The Supreme Court set the bail aside. In a commercial-quantity case, Section 37 permits bail only on reasonable grounds, meaning substantial probable cause, to believe the accused is not guilty. Even ignoring the retracted statements, the circumstantial evidence, including the recovery following his disclosure and call records linking the accused, meant that test was not met.
Issues
- Whether the High Court could grant bail under Section 439 CrPC to an accused in a commercial-quantity NDPS case without satisfying the twin conditions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act.
- Whether, excluding confessional statements under Section 67 of the NDPS Act as inadmissible under Tofan Singh, the remaining material disclosed reasonable grounds to believe the respondent was not guilty.
Provisions considered
- Section 37, Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985For offences involving commercial quantity, bail requires that the Public Prosecutor be heard and that the court be satisfied on reasonable grounds that the accused is not guilty and unlikely to offend on bail; these cumulative conditions are in addition to the limitations under the CrPC. (¶¶ 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 18)
- Section 67, Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985Confessional statements recorded under this section are inadmissible at trial under Tofan Singh, so the respondent's custodial admissions were kept aside; the other circumstantial material was considered. (¶¶ 16, 17)
- Sections 8, 22 and 29, Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985The respondent faces trial for these offences, the quantity involved being commercial. (¶¶ 2, 7)
Held
- 'Reasonable grounds' in Section 37(1)(b) means something more than prima facie grounds: credible and plausible grounds, with substantial probable cause, for believing the accused is not guilty, coupled with satisfaction that he is unlikely to offend while on bail (Ahmadalieva Nodira; State of Kerala v. Rajesh). (¶¶ 12, 13, 14)
- At the bail stage the court need not record a finding that the accused is not guilty or weigh the evidence; the exercise is limited to whether reasonable grounds exist for believing he is not guilty. (¶ 15)
- The High Court rightly excluded the Section 67 statements, but overlooked the other material: the respondent's disclosures led to the raid on the supplier's godown and the recovery of a large haul, he disclosed the supplier's address, and call records showed the accused were in touch. That nothing was found in his own possession does not show he is not guilty; such an assumption is premature. (¶¶ 16, 17)
- The narrow parameters of Section 37 were not satisfied. The length of custody, the filing of the charge-sheet and commencement of trial are not by themselves persuasive grounds for bail under Section 37. (¶ 18)
Result
Appeals allowed. The High Court's order of 16.03.2021 granting post-arrest bail was set aside, the bail bonds cancelled, and the respondent directed to be taken into custody forthwith.