Kerala HC: Physiotherapists and Occupational Therapists Cannot Use “Dr.” Without Medical Degree  ||  Delhi High Court: Law Firms Must Verify Cited Case Laws; Senior Counsel Not Responsible for Finality  ||  MP High Court Dismisses Shah Bano’s Daughter’s Plea, Rules ‘Haq’ Movie is Fiction  ||  Bombay HC Cancels ERC Order, Rules Stakeholders Must Be Heard Before Amending Multi-Year Tariff  ||  Calcutta High Court Rules Dunlop’s Second Appeal Not Maintainable under the Trade Marks Act  ||  Kerala HC: Revisional Power U/S 263 Not Invocable When AO Grants Sec 32AC Deduction After Inquiry  ||  J&K&L HC: Section 359 BNSS Doesn’t Limit High Court’s Inherent Power U/S 528 to Quash FIRs  ||  Bombay HC: BMC Ban on Footpath Cooking via Gas/Grill Doesn’t Apply to Vendors Using Induction  ||  Madras HC: Buyer Not Liable for Seller’s Tax Default; Purchase Tax Can’t Be Imposed under TNGST Act  ||  Kerala HC: Oral Allegations Alone Insufficient to Sustain Bribery Charges Against Ministers    

Rakesh Kumar Singla vs. Union Of India - (High Court of Punjab and Haryana) (14 Jan 2021)

Certificate under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act is necessary, when reliance is being placed upon electronic record

MANU/PH/0011/2021

Narcotics

The instant petition has been filed for grant of regular bail to the Petitioner in case bearing Crime under Sections 8, 21, 22, 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act). The Petitioner submitted that, the Petitioner was neither arrested on the spot nor any recovery of contraband was effected from him and thus, he has been illegally detained.

In the instant case, the Narcotics Bureau is relying not only upon the statement given by a co-accused implicating the Petitioner but also upon a statement given under Section 67 of the NDPS Act by the Petitioner. The Petitioner has been nominated as an accused on the disclosure statement of co-accused who had sent the consignment to Ferozepur. The complicity of the Petitioner will have to be determined by the quality of evidence led during trial. As far as the self inculpatory statement relied upon, present Court is prima facie of the opinion that, the ratio as laid down in the reference order in Tofan Singh Vs. State of Tamil Nadu case would come to the aid of the Petitioner to allow him the benefit of regular bail.

Learned counsel for the NCB has also placed reliance on Whatsapp messages by which the Petitioner could be implicated. However, on the asking of this Court, whether a certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is available at the present moment to authenticate the said messages, the answer is in negative. The recent judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in the matter of Arjun Panditrao Khotkar Vs. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal and others has held that, a certificate Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act is required, when reliance is being placed upon electronic record. Therefore, the said message would be of no evidentiary value as on date.

The investigation in the matter is complete and the challan stands presented and therefore, present Court is of the opinion that, no useful purpose would be served in keeping the Petitioner behind bars. The instant petition is allowed and the Petitioner is directed to be released on regular bail on execution of adequate personal/ surety bond of an amount of Rs.10 Lakhs to the satisfaction of concerned trial Court/Duty Magistrate. The Narcotics Bureau would always be at liberty to rely upon the Whatsapp messages after due compliance of provisions of Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act.

Tags : BAIL   COMPLIANCE   PROVISIONS  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2025 - All Rights Reserved