Summary
The Court restored bail to one accused and granted bail to another in an NDPS prosecution arising from tablets allegedly exported as herbal medicines. The laboratory reports left quantitative analysis unresolved, many tablets contained unregulated potency-enhancement medicines, and no tablets were recovered from the first petitioner. Unverified electronic printouts and co-accused statements did not justify cancelling his bail on the material then available. The second petitioner had spent over two years in custody and the charge sheet was filed. All findings were expressly confined to bail.
Issues
- Whether the available laboratory reports and alleged links justified cancellation of A-4’s bail.
- Whether A-1 should receive regular bail after prolonged custody and filing of the charge sheet.
Provisions considered
- Section 37, Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985The prosecution’s assertion of commercial quantity was assessed against reports expressly unable to provide quantitative analysis; the assessment was preliminary and confined to bail. (¶¶ 9-10, 12)
- Section 67, Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985Reliance on co-accused statements as the principal link to A-4 was considered too tenuous, particularly in light of Tofan Singh. (¶¶ 5, 11)
Held
- The test reports recorded that quantitative analysis could not be performed for want of facilities. With that issue unresolved and many seized tablets admittedly containing medicines outside the NDPS Act, the prosecution could not establish commercial quantity at this preliminary stage merely from the overall seizure. (¶ 10)
- No tablets were recovered from A-4’s office or residence. Printouts of WhatsApp messages did not then sufficiently establish his connection with the other accused while scientific reports on the devices remained awaited. This was an assessment of the available bail material, not a final exclusion of electronic evidence. (¶¶ 10, 12)
- Co-accused statements under Section 67, without recovery from A-4 or a sufficiently established live link, provided too tenuous a basis for cancellation of bail. Reliance of this nature also ran contrary to Tofan Singh. The Special Judge’s bail order was restored. (¶ 11)
- A-1 was also entitled to bail subject to the trial court’s satisfaction, the charge sheet having been filed and his custody having exceeded two years. All observations were prima facie and left the trial’s merits open. (¶ 11-12)
Result
Special leave petitions disposed of: cancellation of A-4’s bail set aside and his earlier bail restored; A-1 directed to be released on bail subject to the trial court’s satisfaction. Trial merits left unaffected.