Sahil Gupta vs. State Of Punjab

Facts

The petitioner, Sahil Gupta, sought regular bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in an FIR registered under Sections 22, 25, and 29 of the NDPS Act. The case involved the recovery of a large quantity of intoxicating tablets (LOMOTIL, ALPRASAFE-0.5, and NITRAVET-10) from a container vehicle. The vehicle was initially impounded for non-production of GST bills. During the investigation, co-accused Ranjit Singh @ Raju and Manjeet Singh @ Mintu were arrested. Sohan Singh @ Soni was subsequently arrested and, during interrogation, implicated the petitioner, stating that the petitioner ran a medical store in Delhi and supplied the intoxicating tablets for Rs. 30,000/- without issuing bills. The petitioner was served a notice under Section 41(1) Cr.P.C. and arrested after admitting to dealings with Sohan Singh @ Raju.

Held

The Court granted regular bail to the petitioner, Sahil Gupta. The Court acknowledged that the petitioner had been in custody since April 16, 2022. It noted that the petitioner was named in the disclosure statement of a co-accused and that there was corroborating evidence of phone calls between them. However, the Court held that the evidentiary value of the disclosure statement and phone calls would be a matter for adjudication during the trial. Crucially, the Court observed that no recovery had been effected from the petitioner and that he had clean antecedents with no other FIRs registered against him. Given that none of the 18 prosecution witnesses had been examined, the trial was not likely to conclude soon. The Court reasoned that the provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act could be relaxed to an extent in this case due to the petitioner being a first-time offender with no recovery from him. The petitioner was ordered to be released on bail subject to furnishing bail and surety bonds, appearing before the police station monthly, and depositing an FDR of Rs. 2,00,000/-.

Key Issues

1. Whether a disclosure statement of a co-accused, without any recovery from the petitioner, has sufficient evidentiary value to deny bail, particularly in light of the petitioner's contention that confessional statements to investigating agencies are inadmissible (relying on Tofan Singh Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and others)? 2. Whether the mere existence of phone calls between the petitioner and a co-accused, as indicated by Call Detail Records (CDRs), establishes the offence against the petitioner, especially when the contents of the conversation are not on record? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that disclosure statements have no evidentiary value and confessional statements to investigating agencies are inadmissible. He emphasized that no recovery was made from him, he is a first-time offender, and his father is a registered pharmacist. He also contended that mere telephonic contact, as shown by CDRs, does not establish the offence. He further pointed out that the investigation is complete and none of the 18 prosecution witnesses have been examined. State's Arguments: The State contended that a huge recovery was effected from co-accused, the petitioner was named in a disclosure statement by a co-accused duly named in the FIR, and there is corroborating evidence of phone calls between the petitioner and the co-accused. Therefore, the petitioner does not deserve bail.