Kerala High Court: ED Can Investigate Without FIR in Scheduled Offence Cases (CMRL Matter)  ||  Delhi High Court Upholds TRAI Rule Capping TV Advertisements at 12 Minutes Per Hour  ||  Supreme Court Directs High Courts to Deliver Judgments in 3 Months and Bail Orders in One Day  ||  Supreme Court: Successful Resolution Applicant Cannot Negotiate Further After CoC Approval  ||  Supreme Court: Succession Law Applies, Not Primogeniture, to Ex-Royal’s Private Estate Inheritance  ||  Supreme Court: Writ Jurisdiction Cannot Challenge Arbitrator’s Section 16 Decision  ||  Supreme Court: Sanyasi Status Cannot Be Ground to Reject Land Compensation Claim  ||  Supreme Court: Section 33(1)(a) of Arbitration Act Cannot Alter Nature of Interest in Award  ||  Supreme Court: Society Office Bearers Not Liable for Cheque Dishonour Without Active Business Role  ||  Supreme Court: Asking a Woman to Adjust in Marriage Does Not Amount to Cruelty By In-Laws    

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 2026 - All Rights Reserved