Rajender Prasad Sharma vs. Ncb

Facts

The applicant, Rajender Prasad Sharma, sought bail in a case registered under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act). The prosecution alleged that the applicant was involved in trafficking heroin concealed in mulethi logs. The NCB recovered 50 packets of heroin, ten packets of a white powdery substance, and mulethi logs containing suspected heroin from a house. Co-accused Razi Haider Zaidi, in his statements, implicated the applicant, stating that the heroin was imported from Afghanistan via the applicant's business, M/s R.R. Global Impex, and stored at Vinayak Cold Storage. The applicant, in his statement, admitted to importing mulethi and dry fruits and identified co-accused Sunny and Razi Haider Zaidi as persons who collected 19 kattas of mulethi from the cold storage. The applicant was arrested on 04.05.2022, and his mobile phone was seized.

Held

The Court held that the applicant had satisfied the twin conditions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act. Regarding the first condition, the Court found that the prosecution's case primarily relied on alleged voluntary statements under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, which are inadmissible in evidence, as per the Supreme Court's ruling in Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu. The Court noted that the direct link between the mulethi logs supplied by the applicant and the heroin recovered was not clearly established from the material presented. The Court observed that the supply of mulethi logs, their presence at the cold storage, and telephone connectivity alone were not sufficient to conclude that the applicant committed the charged offence. For the second condition, the Court noted that the applicant had no criminal antecedents and had been in custody since 04.05.2022, with the trial not likely to conclude soon. Citing several Supreme Court judgments on delay in trial, the Court held that the applicant was not likely to commit any offence if released on bail. Consequently, the applicant was directed to be released on bail.

Key Issues

1. Whether there are reasonable grounds for believing that the applicant is not guilty of the offence charged, satisfying the first condition under Section 37 of the NDPS Act? The petitioner argued that the prosecution's case relies heavily on alleged voluntary statements under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, which are inadmissible in evidence, citing Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu. The petitioner contended that the connection between the mulethi logs supplied by him and the heroin recovered is not established, and his business dealings were legitimate. The revenue (prosecution) argued that the applicant's involvement is evident from his statements, CDR connectivity with co-accused, import of mulethi with concealed heroin, and the release of consignment from cold storage. 2. Whether there are reasonable grounds for believing that the applicant is not likely to commit any offence if released on bail, satisfying the second condition under Section 37 of the NDPS Act? The petitioner highlighted his lack of criminal antecedents and the significant delay in the trial, referencing Supreme Court judgments on delay as a ground for bail. The revenue did not appear to contest this point explicitly.