STATE OF WEST BENGAL versus RAKESH SINGH @ RAKESH KUMAR SINGH

Citation: [2022] 14 S.C.R. 538 · Decided: 11-07-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DINESH MAHESHWARI · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
538
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 14 S.C.R.
STATE OF WEST BENGAL
v.
RAKESH SINGH @ RAKESH KUMAR SINGH
(Criminal Appeal No. 923 of 2022)
JULY 11, 2022
[DINESH MAHESHWARI AND ANIRUDDHA BOSE, JJ.]
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 –
ss.27A, 37, and 21(b)/29 – Rigours of provisions of s.37 relating to
grant of bail – Inapplicability – Cocaine, a contraband drug,
recovered from a motorcar with three occupants – Respondent
accused of offences u/ss.21(b)/29/27A – Accusation against
respondent pertaining to offence u/s. 27A that he along with other
co-accused hatched criminal conspiracy to implicate two occupants
of the motorcar under the NDPS Act out of personal grudge –
Prosecution alleged that respondent got the contraband procured
after making payment for the same and then got it planted in the
vehicle occupied by the three persons – Having been arrested, the
respondent filed bail application – Trial Court rejected the bail
application – Respondent approached High Court – High Court
held that the restriction of s.37 would not apply to this case and the
respondent, who was in custody, qualified for grant of bail with
stringent conditions – On appeal, held: The story of planting of
contraband in the vehicle in question by some third person could
only be disbelieved, for being squarely contrary to the initial case
of the prosecution, as stated in the written complaint – Once the
veracity of prosecution case against the respondent is in serious
doubt, further analysis on the other factors about financing the
drug trafficking and harbouring of offender need not be undertaken
because, when story of planting of contraband is removed out of
consideration, all other factors by which respondent was sought to
be connected with such alleged planting could only be regarded as
false and fanciful, at least at this stage – In the facts and
circumstances, the High Court rightly found that applicability of
s.27A was seriously questionable in this case – That being the
position; and there being otherwise no recovery from the respondent
and the quantity in question being also intermediate quantity, the
rigours of s.37 do not apply to the present case – The past history
538
[2022] 14 S.C.R. 538
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
539
of the respondent and even his conduct in relation to the processes
concerning the present case give rise to a few questions but, the
strong countervailing factor in the present case is the prima facie
indication that he was being sought to be framed by concoctions
and baseless stories – Another factor noticeable was that respondent
was not involved in any NDPS Act case or any akin offence in the
past – Further, nothing of any contraband article was recovered
from respondent or from any place under his exclusive control –
This factor further adds on to the doubt as to whether the respondent
had at all been indulgent in narcotics or any contraband – That
being the position, the view as taken by the High Court cannot be
said to be an altogether unacceptable or impossible view of the
matter – Also, apart from the stringent conditions already imposed
by the High Court, it is always open for the prosecution to seek
imposition of any further condition or even to seek cancellation of
the bail granted to the respondent, in case of any fault on his part
in due adherence to the conditions already imposed – No reason
for interference in order passed by High Court granting bail to the
respondent with specific conditions – Bail.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD:1. The contention on the part of the respondent
cannot be ignored that if statements of two witnesses were
recorded on 27.02.2021 and 28.02.2021, there was no material
with the investigating agency to summon him on 22.02.2021. This
is apart from the fact that the statements of the said two witnesses,
prima facie give rise to some reasonable questions, as to why
were they kept as companions while the respondent and a co-
accused purportedly carried out the alleged clandestine? deals
with exchange of contraband and the currency? [Para 14.1][559-
F-H]
2.1. According to the prosecution, the FIR in question for
offences under Sections 21(b) and 29 NDPS Act came to be
registered on the basis of a written complaint dated 19.02.2021.
This complaint dated 19.02.2021 is an admitted document of the
appellant and is rather the foundation of the entire matter. A few
passages of the said written complaint, disclose as to what exactly
transpired in detaining the v

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