NARCOTICS CONTROL BUREAU versus MOHIT AGGARWAL

Citation: [2022] 7 S.C.R. 600 · Decided: 19-07-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: N.V. RAMANA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
600
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 7 S.C.R.
NARCOTICS CONTROL BUREAU
v.
MOHIT AGGARWAL
(Criminal Appeal Nos. 1001-1002 of 2022)
JULY 19, 2022
[N. V. RAMANA, CJI, KRISHNA MURARI AND
HIMA KOHLI, JJ.]
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – ss.
8, 22, 29, 37 and 67 – Post-arrest bail – Not granted – Respondent
made statement u/s. 67 NDPS Act and disclosed that he was illegally
selling and purchasing the illegal drugs from ‘PJ’ – Based on it, a
search was conducted by NCB at the premise of co-accused-‘PJ’
and drugs covered under NDPS were recovered in huge quantities
–  Respondent was taken into custody – Respondent made application
for bail before Special Judge, NDPS which was rejected – High
Court granted bail to respondent u/s 439 of Cr.PC – NCB filed an
appeal before the Supreme Court and submitted that in light of
s.37 of NDPS Act, the High Court erred in granting bail to the
respondent – Respondent contended that any confessional statement
recorded u/s 67 NDPS Act is inadmissible in trial of offence under
the said Act – Held: In view of the Tofan Singh case, the admissions
made by respondent u/s. 67 NDPS Act is inadmissible in the trial
under the NDPS Act – However, the disclosure statement made by
the respondent to NCB which led to the searching of premises of co-
accused-‘PJ’ and recovery of huge amount of illicit drugs and the
arrest of ‘PJ’, which was based on respondent’s information shows
that they were in touch with each other – As per s.37 of NDPS Act,
only if the condition of reasonable grounds for believing that the
person accused is not guilty of such an offence is satisfied, then
only bail can be granted – Respondent have failed to demonstrate
the same – Condition u/s. 37 NDPS Act was not satisfied – Order of
post-arrest bail quashed and set aside – Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 – s.439.
[2022] 7 S.C.R. 600
600
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
601
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD:1. The Single Judge of the High Court cannot be
faulted for holding that the appellant NCB could not have relied
on the confessional statements of the respondent and the other
co-accused recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act in the
light of law laid down by a Three Judges Bench of this Court in
Tofan Singh case, wherein as per the majority decision, a
confessional statement recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS
Act has been held to be inadmissible in the trial of an offence
under the NDPS Act. Therefore, the admissions made by the
respondent while in custody to the effect that he had illegally
traded in narcotic drugs, will have to be kept aside. However,
this was not the only material that the appellant-NCB had relied
on to oppose the bail application filed by the respondent. The
appellant-NCB had specifically stated that it was the disclosures
made by the respondent that had led the NCB team to arrive at
and raid the godown of the co-accused, ‘PJ’ which resulted in the
recovery of a large haul of different psychotropic substances in
the form of tablets, injections and syrups. Counsel for the
appellant-NCB had also pointed out that it was the respondent
who had disclosed the address and location of the co-accused,
‘PJ’ who was arrested later on and the CDR details of the mobile
phones of all co-accused including the respondent herein showed
that they were in touch with each other. [Para 16][608-G-H; 609-
A-C]
2. Even dehors the confessional statement of the
respondent and the other co-accused recorded under Section 67
of the NDPS Act, which were subsequently retracted by them,
the other circumstantial evidence brought on record by the
appellant-NCB ought to have dissuaded the High Court from
exercising its discretion in favour of the respondent and
concluding that there were reasonable grounds to justify that he
was not guilty of such an offence under the NDPS Act.  This Court
was not persuaded by the submission made by counsel for the
respondent and the observation made in the impugned order that
since nothing was found from the possession of the respondent,
NARCOTICS CONTROL BUREAU v. MOHIT AGGARWAL
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
602
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 7 S.C.R.
he is not guilty of the offence for which he has been charged.
Such an assumption would be premature at this stage. [Para
17][609-D-E]
3. The Court held that the narrow parameters of bail
available under Section 37 of the Act, have not been satisfied in
the facts of the instant case. At this stage, it was not safe to
conclude that the respondent had 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.