Court’s Decision:
The Uttarakhand High Court allowed the bail application of the applicant, who was in judicial custody under Section 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985. The court found that there was no material evidence against the applicant other than the statements of the co-accused. Consequently, the applicant was granted bail.
Facts:
The applicant was in judicial custody in connection with FIR No. 07 of 2024, filed under Section 29 of the NDPS Act at Challani Police Station, Jhirauli, District Bageshwar. According to the FIR, charas (a narcotic substance) was recovered from the possession of the co-accused. During interrogation, the co-accused claimed that the charas was supplied by the applicant and others. However, nothing was recovered directly from the applicant.
Issues:
The primary issue before the court was whether the applicant should be granted bail when the only evidence against him was the statement of the co-accused.
Petitioner’s Arguments:
The petitioner’s counsel argued that nothing was recovered from the applicant’s possession and that his implication in the case was solely based on the statements of the co-accused. Beyond these statements, there was no independent or corroborative material linking the applicant to the alleged crime.
Respondent’s Arguments:
The learned counsel for the State acknowledged that, apart from the statements of the co-accused, there was no material evidence against the applicant.
Analysis of the Law:
Section 29 of the NDPS Act pertains to abetment and criminal conspiracy to commit an offense under the Act. In such cases, the prosecution must provide substantive evidence linking the accused to the crime. Merely relying on the statements of co-accused individuals without additional corroborative evidence is insufficient to establish guilt, particularly for a serious offense under the NDPS Act.
Precedent Analysis:
Although no specific precedents were cited in the judgment, the general principle of law in bail matters under the NDPS Act emphasizes the need for concrete evidence against an accused, especially when the offense is severe and entails stringent punishments. Courts generally consider whether the accused poses a flight risk, whether the evidence prima facie supports the allegations, and whether there is any possibility of tampering with witnesses or evidence.
Court’s Reasoning:
The court observed that the prosecution failed to present any material evidence against the applicant aside from the statements of the co-accused. As there was no recovery from the applicant and no independent corroboration of the co-accused’s statements, the court found it appropriate to grant bail.
Conclusion:
The bail application was allowed, and the applicant was ordered to be released on bail, subject to the condition that he executes a personal bond and provides two reliable sureties of equal amounts to the satisfaction of the court concerned.
Implications:
This decision underscores the importance of corroborative evidence in cases under the NDPS Act. Mere statements from co-accused without further evidence may not suffice to justify continued custody, highlighting the court’s role in ensuring that liberty is not unjustifiably curtailed without substantial proof of involvement in serious offenses.
