Supreme Court Disposes of Contempt Petition against Chhattisgarh Tax Authorities  ||  NCLAT Partially Upholds CCI’s Decision that Google Leveraged its Dominance in Play Store Ecosystem  ||  SC: No Absolute Rule that When Investigation is at Nascent Stage, High Court Cannot Quash an Offence  ||  Delhi HC: CESTAT’s Order Interdicting GST Dept. from Invoking Extended Period of Limitation Upheld  ||  AP HC: Posting Matters to Longer Dates Defeats Purpose of Urgent Notice under O.39 R.1 CPC  ||  Delhi HC: Initiation / Expansion of Live Streaming Must be Preceded by Adequate Preparation  ||  MP HC: Centre to File Response Over Compliance of Public Awareness of POCSO Act in 2 Weeks  ||  Rajasthan HC: Decision to Close Hostel Mess Due to Covid Won’t Amount to Abolition of Post  ||  Allahabad HC: Conversion to Islam Bonafide if Individual Embraces by Own Freewill  ||  Telangana HC: Cohabitation on Pretext of False Divorce from First Wife Amounts to Rape    

Somdutt Singh @ Shivam vs. NCB (Neutral Citation: 2023:DHC:8553) - (High Court of Delhi) (01 Dec 2023)

Confessional statements given under Section 67 of the NDPS Act are inadmissible

MANU/DE/7994/2023

Narcotics

By way of the present applications, the Applicants seek grant of bail in Case under Sections 8/22(c)/23/25/29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. (NDPS Act). Insofar as the applicant Kashmir is concerned, a reading of the statement tendered by Preeti under Section 67 of the NDPS Act seems to suggest that, the applicant Kashmir was only an employee of the main accused persons, whose role was limited to packing the medicines and delivering them to the Post Office/Courier Office.

On a prima facie view, the evidence seems to suggest that, the Kingsbury Apartment from where recoveries were made was taken on rent in the name of the applicant Kashmir at the instance of the co-accused persons and they were paying rent for the same. Further, the Applicant Kashmir was not found present at the apartment at the time of recovery of the psychotropic substances. Therefore, at this stage, it cannot be conclusively said that recoveries were made from the possession of the applicant and this would have to be established during trial.

Insofar as the applicant Somdutt Singh is concerned, the only basis of implicating him are the statements tendered by the co-accused persons under Section 67 of the NDPS Act. In Tofan Singh, it was held by the Supreme Court that, the confessional statements given under Section 67 of the NDPS Act are inadmissible. No recoveries have been made from the applicant Somdutt Singh or at his instance. The rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act would not apply in the case of both the present applicants.

It is also a matter of record that, the other co-accused persons have already been granted bail. Therefore, on the principles of parity as well, the present applicants would be entitled to grant of bail. Charges in the present case have been framed vide order on charge dated 16th December, 2021. As per the Nominal Roll on record, the applicants Kashmir and Somdutt have been in custody for over three years and two and a half years respectively. Further, the conduct of the applicants in jail has been satisfactory for the last one year and the applicant Kashmir is not involved in any other case.

In facts and circumstances, the applicants are entitled to the grant of bail. Accordingly, the applications are allowed and the applicants shall be released on bail, if not required in custody in any other case, on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties of the like amount subject to the satisfaction of the Trial Court and further subject to the conditions. Applications disposed off.

Tags : BAIL   GRANT   CONDITIONS  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2025 - All Rights Reserved