Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court dealt with two special leave petitions arising from a common judgment of the Madras High Court concerning bail under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act). The Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) had seized approximately 1,37,665 tablets from four locations in Chennai, including the premises of Raja Chandrasekharan (A-1) and courier offices. Based on statements of A-1 and others, Bharat Chaudhary (A-4) was arrested in Jaipur five months later, though no contraband was recovered from him. The Special Judge granted bail to A-4 on grounds including lack of recovery, inconclusive test reports showing some tablets were sexual enhancement drugs, and the inadmissibility of statements under Section 67 following Tofan Singh. The High Court cancelled A-4's bail and rejected A-1's bail, holding that the statements were admissible for investigation purposes and that the quantity indicated commercial dealing. The Supreme Court restored A-4's bail, finding that the High Court erred by overlooking the lack of recovery from A-4, the inconclusive nature of test reports, and the binding effect of Tofan Singh. Regarding A-1, the Court noted that his bail application was rejected by the High Court on similar grounds, but since A-1 was in custody for over two years and the trial was not likely to conclude soon, the Court granted him bail subject to conditions. The Court emphasized that the twin conditions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act were not an absolute bar where the prosecution's case was weak and the accused had been in custody for a substantial period.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Bail under NDPS Act - Section 37 NDPS Act - Commercial Quantity - The court considered whether the twin conditions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act for grant of bail were satisfied, particularly in the context of commercial quantity of contraband. The Supreme Court held that where no contraband is recovered from the accused and test reports are inconclusive, the rigors of Section 37 may not apply strictly. (Paras 10-11) B) Evidence Law - Confessional Statements - Section 67 NDPS Act - Inadmissibility - Following the majority view in Tofan Singh v. State of Madras, the court reiterated that confessional statements recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act are inadmissible in evidence. The High Court erred in relying on such statements to cancel bail. (Paras 5, 7, 10) C) Criminal Procedure - Bail - Cancellation of Bail - The Supreme Court held that the High Court's cancellation of bail granted to A-4 was unsustainable as the Special Judge had valid reasons, including lack of recovery, inconclusive test reports, and the impact of Tofan Singh. The High Court's approach was found to be erroneous. (Paras 10-11) D) Narcotic Drugs - Seizure and Sampling - Sections 42, 52 NDPS Act - Standing Order 1/89 - The court noted arguments regarding non-compliance with procedural requirements for seizure and sampling, but did not finally adjudicate on these issues. (Para 8)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court was justified in cancelling the bail granted to A-4 and rejecting the bail application of A-1 under the NDPS Act, considering the absence of recovery from A-4, the inadmissibility of statements under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, and the inconclusive nature of test reports regarding the seized substances.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals. The order of the High Court cancelling bail of A-4 was set aside and his bail was restored. The bail application of A-1 was allowed, and he was directed to be released on bail on such terms as the trial court may impose. The Court held that the High Court erred in relying on inadmissible statements and overlooking the lack of recovery and inconclusive test reports.
Law Points
- Bail under NDPS Act
- Section 37 NDPS Act
- Section 67 NDPS Act
- Inadmissibility of confessional statements
- Tofan Singh v. State of Madras
- Commercial quantity
- Test reports
- Seizure procedure
- Section 42 NDPS Act
- Section 52 NDPS Act
- Standing Order 1/89
