Judgment Intelligence
OtherState (by NCB) Bengaluru v. Pallulabid Ahmad Arimutta & Anr.
2022 INSC 26
SLP (Crl.) No. 242 of 2022 (Diary No. 22702 of 2020) with SLP (Crl.) Nos. 1569, 1454, 1465, 2080 and 1773-74 of 2021; reported as (2022) 12 SCC 633
- Court
- Supreme Court of India
- Date of Decision
- 10 January 2022
- Bench
- Chief Justice N.V. Ramana, Justices Surya Kant and Hima Kohli
- Relevant Acts & Sections
- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — Sections 8(c), 8A, 20(b), 21, 22, 27A, 27B, 28, 29, 37, 67
Final Outcome
Five petitions dismissed and the bail orders upheld. In SLP (Crl.) No. 1569/2021 the NCB succeeded: Mohammed Afzal's bail was cancelled and he was directed to surrender before the Special Judge (NDPS) within two weeks (paras 10-12).
Key holdings
- Section 67 statements of the accused or co-accused, inadmissible at trial after Tofan Singh, cannot ground cancellation of bail (para 10).
- Call records and alleged tampering of evidence are matters to be examined at trial, not reasons to cancel bail (para 10).
- An accused found in conscious possession of commercial quantity cannot claim parity with co-accused released on bail (para 11).
- Granting bail on parity while overlooking a commercial-quantity recovery disregards Section 37 of the NDPS Act (para 11).
- Observations made while deciding cancellation of bail do not bear on the merits of the trial (para 13).
Brief Facts
On 22.03.2019 the Narcotics Control Bureau seized hashish, amphetamine and cocaine at Bengaluru airport from two passengers bound for Doha. In a connected case on 15.06.2019, methamphetamine was found in a co-accused's bag and large quantities of methamphetamine, hashish, hashish oil, ganja and Lyrica capsules in a flat rented by two accused (paras 2, 4). Other accused were arrested on statements recorded under Section 67 and call records (paras 2-3, 6). The Karnataka High Court granted bail to the respondents, and the NCB sought cancellation, arguing that the Section 37 conditions were not met (paras 1, 7).
Court's Findings
The Court examined a tabulated statement of each respondent's role, evidence, antecedents and custody (para 8). For all but one respondent, the NCB relied heavily on voluntary statements of the accused and co-accused under Section 67, along with call detail records and antecedents (para 8). Prima facie, apart from those statements no substantial material connected these respondents with trafficking when they were arrested, and none except Mohammed Afzal was found with commercial quantities (para 9). Tofan Singh holds that a confessional statement under Section 67 is inadmissible in an NDPS trial, so arrests based on such statements cannot ground overturning the bail orders; call records and alleged tampering are matters for trial (para 10). Mohammed Afzal stood on a different footing: substantial commercial quantities were recovered from the flat he rented, which the High Court overlooked, granting bail only for parity with co-accused (para 11). Given his conscious possession of commercial quantity, Section 37 barred extending that parity to him (para 11). The observations were confined to cancellation of bail (para 13).
Legal Principle
Bail granted to NDPS accused will not be cancelled where the prosecution's case at the time of arrest rests on Section 67 statements, which Tofan Singh makes inadmissible at trial. But an accused found in conscious possession of commercial quantity cannot claim parity with co-accused, because Section 37 applies (paras 10-11).
Precedents Relied Upon
- Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu (2021) 4 SCC 1
A confessional statement recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act remains inadmissible in the trial of an offence under the NDPS Act, so arrests based on such statements cannot form the basis for overturning orders granting bail.
