Bar U/S 37 NDPS Act Cannot Be Invoked If Evidence Appears To Be Unbelievable And Not Sufficient For Conviction: Delhi HC Grants Bail In Illegal Drug Trafficking Case
The Delhi High Court granted bail to a man implicated in illegally trafficking cocaine holding that the bar under Section 37 of the NDPS Act cannot be invoked if the evidence against a person appears to be unbelievable and does not seem to be sufficient for conviction.
135 grams of Cocaine was allegedly recovered from the house of the coaccused who revealed the involvement of the accused in the illegal trafficking of drugs in his statement. Use
The accused had filed for bail for offences under Sections 8, 21(c), and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act). However, the bail application was rejected by the trial court due to the embargo under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.
A Single Bench of Justice Amit Mahajan observed, “It is pertinent to note that 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.”
Advocate Rudra Pratap represented the applicant, while Sr. Standing Counsel Subhash Bansal appeared for the respondent.
The High Court relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu : (2021) 4 SCC 1 where it was held that a disclosure statement made under Section 67 of the NDPS Act was impermissible as evidence without corroboration.
The Court explained that apart from the CDR and CAF reports, and some unverified WhatsApp chats between the accused and the coaccused, there was no evidence to show that the accused was involved in the commission of the crime of drug trafficking.
The accused was arrested on the basis of the disclosure statement which the Court held was not admissible without any corroborative evidence and on the basis of the alleged WhatsApp chats, which were exchanged ten months prior to the recovery of the contraband from the coaccused.
The Court remarked that “the Courts are not expected to accept every allegation made by the prosecution as a gospel truth.”
The accused was directed to be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond for a sum of ₹20,000/-.
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the bail application.
Cause Title: Vinod Nagar v. Narcotics Control Bureau (Neutral Citation: 2024-DHC-1244)
Appearance:
Applicant: Advocates Rudra Pratap and Rahul Sharma
Respondent: Sr. Standing Counsel Subhash Bansal and Advocate Shashwat Bansal
