Vinod Nagar Vs. Narcotics Control Bureau(Neutral Citation: 2024:DHC:1244) - (High Court of Delhi) (19 Feb 2024)

Bar, as provided in Section 37 of NDPS Act, cannot be invoked where the evidence against the accused appears to be unbelievable and insufficient for the purpose of conviction

MANU/DE/1158/2024

Narcotics

The present application has been filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ('CrPC') read with Section 482 of CrPC seeking regular bail under Sections 8, 21(c) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ('NDPS Act').

The case of the prosecution is based upon the disclosure of the co-accused Justin Izuchukwu Samuel. It is relevant to note that, while the veracity of the disclosure statement of the co-accused is to be tested at the time of the trial, however, this Court cannot lose sight of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu. It was held that, a disclosure statement made under Section 67 of the NDPS Act is impermissible as evidence without corroboration.

In the present case, apart from the CDR and CAF reports, and some unverified WhatsApp chats between the applicant and the co-accused, there is no evidence to show that the applicant was involved in the commission of the crime of drug trafficking. No recovery has been effectuated from the applicant in the present case. In such circumstances, merely because the applicant was in regular touch with the co-accused, is not sufficient to prima facie establish the offence against the applicant.

It is not the case of the prosecution that, at the contemporaneous time, the applicant was in contact with the co-accused in relation to the contraband which was seized from the co-accused on 18th June, 2021.

The Courts are not expected to accept every allegation made by the prosecution as a gospel truth. The bar, as provided in Section 37 of the NDPS Act, cannot be invoked where the evidence against the accused appears to be unbelievable and does not seem to be sufficient for the purpose of conviction of the accused.

In the present case, the prosecution has been given an adequate opportunity to oppose the present application. In view of the facts of the case, prima facie, this Court is of the opinion, that at this stage, there are reasonable grounds to believe that the applicant is not guilty of the alleged offences. Moreover, it is also not disputed that the applicant has clean antecedents, and is thus not likely to commit any offence whilst on bail. The applicant is directed to be released on bail subject to the conditions. Application allowed.

Tags : ANTECEDENTS BAIL GRANT