NDPS Accused Named In Co-Accused’s Disclosure Gets Bail As Trial Is Unlikely To End Soon; Must Deposit ₹2 Lakh FDR

The petitioner sought bail in an NDPS case.

He was implicated through a disclosure statement made by a co-accused; the court noted the principles concerning cases involving such disclosures, absence of recovery from the petitioner, and call-detail records that do not reveal the conversations between the accused.

The court found that the trial was unlikely to conclude soon and that further incarceration was not required in the circumstances.

The supplied extract does not state the petitioner’s custody date or the number of witnesses examined.

Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 imposes conditions on the grant of bail, including the court’s satisfaction that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty and is unlikely to commit an offence while on bail; the court considered that a prima facie satisfaction under the provision could be recorded in the factual circumstances before it.

The court relied on authorities addressing bail where an accused is implicated through a co-accused’s disclosure statement and there is no recovery from that accused, including State of Haryana v. Samarth Kumar, Vijay Singh v. State of Haryana, State by (NCB) Bengaluru v. Pallulabid Ahmad Arimutta, Vikrant Singh v. State of Punjab, and Yash Jayeshbhai Champaklal Shah.

Those authorities include the principle that a Section 67 NDPS Act statement is inadmissible as a confession at trial, and that call-detail records without the contents of conversations are not, by themselves, corroborative material in the absence of substantive evidence.

The petitioner’s implication rested on a co-accused’s disclosure statement, while the court’s cited authorities treated the absence of recovery and the lack of conversation transcripts accompanying call-detail records as significant in assessing the material against an accused.

Considering that factual setting and the prospect of a prolonged trial, the court concluded that continued incarceration was unnecessary and that the requisite prima facie satisfaction under Section 37 could be recorded.

The petitioner must report to the concerned police station on the first Monday of each month and provide written confirmation that he has not been involved in any other crime, apart from the cases identified in the order.

He, or someone on his behalf, must also deposit an FDR of ₹2,00,000 with the Trial Court, liable to forfeiture according to law if he absents himself from trial without sufficient cause.

The petition was disposed of.