Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/ vs The State Of Assam on 4 December, 2024
Page No.# 1/10
GAHC010159502024
2024:GAU-AS:12273
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Bail Appln./2375/2024
NIYARUN NESSA @ NEHARUN NESSA
W/O ASAR UDDIN, R/O DOLURBOND, P.S.-R K NAGAR, DIST- KARIMGANJ,
ASSAM
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M A CHOUDHURY, MR A AHMED,U U KHAN,MR. A
AHMED
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM,
Page No.# 2/10
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA
ORDER
Date : 04.12.2024
Heard Mr. A. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. R.
J. Baruah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent.
2. This is an application under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 praying for grant of
bail to the accused/petitioner, who has been arrested in connection with Special
(NDPS) Case No. 03/2024, pending before the Court of learned Sessions Judge,
Karimganj, arising out of Ratabari P.S. Case No. 01/2024, under Section
22(c)/25/29 of the NDPS Act, 1985.
3. Scanned copy of the case record has already been received. Perused the
same. Heard both sides.
4. It is submitted by Mr. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner, that the
present accused/petitioner was arrested in connection with this case on
31.03.2024 and since then, she is languishing in jail hajot. No recovery was
made from her possession of the accused/petitioer and she was arrested only
on the basis of the statement made by the other co-accused persons. From the
Forwarding Report also, it is seen that the present accused/petitioner was
arrested only on the basis of the statement made by the co-accused wherein it
is alleged that the co-accused had confessed about involvement of the present
accused/petitioner and on the basis of which, she got arrested. He further
Page No.# 3/10
submitted that it is a settled position of law that the statement recorded under
Section 67 of NDPS Act cannot be used against other accused person and it has
no value in the eye of law.
5. Mr. Ahmed also relied on a decision of this Court passed in Bail Appln.
No. 2090/2022, wherein also the co-ordinate Bench of this Court had granted
bail to the petitioner relying on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court passed
in the case of Tofan Singh Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, reported in (2021) 4
SCC 1, wherein it is held that the statement of the co-accused recorded under
Section 67 NDPS Act cannot be used against the other accused persons nor the
statement of the accused recorded under Section 67 of NDPS Act can be used
against him. He basically emphasized on paragraph No. 2 of the said judgment,
which reads as under:
“20. Now, the question which arises as to whether such statement can be used for
conviction of the petitioner. The Supreme Court in the case of Tofan Singh vs. State of
Tamil Nadu, reported in (2021) 4 SCC 1 observed that the confessional statement
made before an Officer designated under Section 42 or Section 53 of the Act of 1985
cannot be the basis to convict a person under the Act of 1985. It was observed that
without any non-obstinate clause doing away with Section 25 of the Evidence Act,
1872 and without any safeguard would be a direct infringement of the constitutional
guarantees contained in Articles 14, 20 (3) and 21 of the Constitution of India. In
paragraph Nos. 158 and its sub-paragraphs, the Supreme Court observed as follows:-
“158. We answer the reference by stating:
158.1. That the officers who are invested with powers under Section 53 of the
NDPS Act are “police officers” within the meaning of Section 25 of the Evidence
Act, as a result of which any confessional statement made to them would be
barred under the provisions of Section 25 of the Evidence Act, and cannot be
taken into account in order to convict an accused under the NDPS Act.
158.2. That a statement recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act cannot be
used as a confessional statement in the trial of an offence under the NDPS Act.”
Page No.# 4/10
6. Mr. Ahmed also relied on a decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in
Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 242/2022, decided on 10.01.2022,
and emphasized on paragraph Nos. 8, 9 & 10 of the judgment, wherein it has
been held has under:
“8. Vide order dated 05th January, 2020, learned counsel for the petitioners- NCB were
directed to prepare a comprehensive tabulated statement with respect to the role
attributed to each of the respondents, the evidence gathered against them at the time
of their arrest, their antecedents, the dates on which they were arrested and the
period of custody undergone by them, for ready reference. The said tabulated
statement has been filed and a perusal thereof reveals that in SLP (Crl.) @ Diary
No.22702/2020, SLP (Crl.) No.1454/2021, SLP (Crl.) No. 1465/2021, SLP (Crl.) Nos.
1773-1774/2021, SLP (Crl.) No. 2080/2021, heavy reliance has been placed by the
petitioner-NCB on the voluntary statements of the accused and the co-accused
recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act for arresting them. Another piece of
evidence referred to is the CDR details in respect of A-3, A-4, A-5, A-6 and A-8 in the
first case which as per the prosecution, goes to show that the said respondents were
constantly in touch with each other and with A-1 and A-2 on the date of the seizure.
The attention of this Court was also drawn to the fact that the antecedents of A-5, A-6
and A-8 in the first case and A-2 and A-5 in the second Petition for Special Leave to
Appeal (Criminal) No. 1569 OF 2021 case are not clean.
9. Having gone through the records alongwith the tabulated statement of the
respondents submitted on behalf of the petitioner-NCB and on carefully perusing the
impugned orders passed in each case, it emerges that except for the voluntary
statements of A-1 and A-2 in the first case and that of the respondents themselves
recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, it appears, prima facie, that no substantial
material was available with the prosecution at the time of arrest to connect the
respondents with the allegations levelled against them of indulging in drug trafficking.
It has not been denied by the prosecution that except for the respondent in SLP (Crl.)
No. 1569/2021, none of the other respondents were found to be in possession of
commercial quantities of psychotropic substances, as contemplated under the NDPS
Act.
10. It has been held in clear terms in Tofan Singh Vs. State of Tamil Nadu 6, that a
confessional statement recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act will remain
inadmissible in the trial of an offence under the NDPS Act. In the teeth of the
aforesaid decision, the arrests made by the petitioner-NCB, on the basis of the
confession/voluntary statements of the respondents or the co-accused 6 (2021) 4 SCC
1 Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) No. 1569 OF 2021 under Section 67 of
the NDPS Act, cannot form the basis for overturning the impugned orders releasing
them on bail. The CDR details of some of the accused or the allegations of tampering
of evidence on the part of one of the respondents is an aspect that will be examined
at the stage of trial. For the aforesaid reason, this Court is not inclined to interfere in
Page No.# 5/10the orders dated 16 th September, 2019, 14th January, 2020, 16th January, 2020, 19th
December, 2019 and 20th January, 2020 passed in SLP (Crl.) No@ Diary No.
22702/2020, SLP (Crl.) No. 1454/2021, SLP (Crl.) No. 1465/2021, SLP (Crl.) No. 1773-
74/2021 and SLP (Crl.) No. 2080/2021 respectively. The impugned orders are,
accordingly, upheld and the Special Leave Petitions filed by the petitioner-NCB seeking
cancellation of bail granted to the respective respondents, are dismissed as meritless.”
7. Accordingly, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that
except the statement made by the co-accused, there is no material to arrest the
present accused/petitioner in the instant case nor any contraband has been
recovered from her possession. More so, he submitted that one co-accused
person, namely, Gobindra Cheta, has already been discharged from this case by
the I.O. as no materials have been found against the said person and the case
of the present petitioner is also similarly situated with the said person.
Accordingly, Mr. Ahmed submitted that it is a fit case wherein the
accused/petition can be granted with the privilege of bail and she being a lady
and a permanent resident of her addressed locality, there is no chance of
absconding, rather she will appear on each and every date before the learned
Trial Court below.
8. Mr. Baruah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, submitted in this regard
that the present accused/petitioner got arrested in connection with this case
only on 31.03.2024 and the Charge-Sheet was also filed on 31.03.2024 on the
basis of the F.I.R. lodged on 01.01.2024. He further submitted that the
statement made by the co-accused under Section 67 of NDPS Act may not be
relevant at the time of trial, but at the time of investigation, the I.O. has to rely
on the statement of the co-accused and on the basis of which, the Investigating
Officer may investigate the matter to unearth some other facts of this case. He
further submitted that the judgment of the Apex Court passed in case of Tofan
Page No.# 6/10
Singh (supra) does not bar to investigate the case on the basis of the
statement made by the co-accused. However, the statement recorded under
Section 67 of NDPS may not be relevant at the time of trial to convict the
accused person. Mr. Baruah further submitted that it is an organized crime and
the recovery of the contraband from the other accused person may not be
there, but only due to non-recovery of the contraband, one cannot be released
on bail if sufficient incriminating materiasl are available or collected by the I.O.
during investigation of this case. He accordingly submitted that in the instant
case also, it is a fact that the recovery was made from the co-accused persons,
but during investigation, it has come into the light that the present
accused/petitioner is the main accused person. More so, the husband of the
present accused/petitioner is also one of the co-accused who is also involved in
the alleged offence.
9. Mr. Baruah further submitted that the case being the commercial in nature,
rigor of Section 37 of NDPS Act will also follow wherein the twin condition has to
be satisfied that the accused is not guilty of the offence and there has to be a
belief that the accused will not repeat or commit the same offence while on bail.
But from the materials collected by the I.O. during investigation, there cannot
be any reason to believe that the present accused/petitioner is not guilty of the
alleged offence nor there can be any reasonable believe that she will not repeat
similar kind of offence while on bail. He, accordingly, raised serious objection
and submitted that it is not at all a fit case to grant bail to the present
accused/petitioner at this stage.
10. He further submitted that one of the co-accused, who is the husband of
Page No.# 7/10
the present accused/petitioner, is still absconding and against him, the NBWA
had been issued by the learned Sessions Judge, and as the co-accused is
evading police arrest, the charge could not be framed by the learned Sessions
Judge, though every endeavor has been made to procure the attendance of the
co-accused.
11. Mr. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted in this regard that
the bail cannot be denied only on the sole ground that the co-accused has not
surrendered or arrested. In that context, he also relied on a decision of Hon’ble
Supreme Court passed in the case of Sebil Elanjimpally Vs. The State of
Odisha [2023 LiveLaw (SC) 474].
12. After hearing the submissions made by the learned counsels for both
sides, I have also perused the scanned copy of the case record along with the
Case Diary.
13. It is seen that the accused/petitioner was arrested in connection with this
case on 31.03.2024. However, till date, the charge could not be framed by the
learned Sessions Judge due to absence of one of the co-accused, who is also
the husband of the present accused/petitioner and was also declared as an
absconder in the charge-sheet. It is also a fact that there is no recovery from
the present accused/petitioner, but from the materials available in the case
record, it is seen that she is one of the culprit who used to deliver the
contrabands to the other co-accused persons to deliver the same at Anipur area
and during investigation also, it has revealed that the present accused/
petitioner is alleged to have been involved in the said offence and she along
with her husband used to deal with the business of drugs. It is also an admitted
Page No.# 8/10
fact that the case is of commercial in nature and hence, rigor of Section 37
NDPS Act will follow.
14. For ready reference, Section 37 NDPS Act is extracted hereinbelow:
“37. Offences to be cognizable and non-bailable.
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
(b) No person accused of an offence punishable for offences under section 19 or
section 24 or section 27A and also for offences involving commercial quantity shall be
released on bail or on his own bond unless–
(i)the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the application for
such release, and
(ii)where the Public Prosecutor opposes the application, the court is satisfied that there
are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence and that he
is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.”
15. Thus, as per Section 37 (1) (b) of NDPS Act, the bail can only be granted,
if there is no reasonable ground for believing that accused is not guilty of such
offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. But, from
the materials available in the case record, there cannot be any reasons to
believe that the accused/petitioner is not guilty of such offence or he is not
likely to commit any offence while on bail.
16. In this regard, a judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court can be relied on
which was reported in 2024 0 Supreme (SC) 130 (State by the Inspector
of Police Vs. B. Ramu), wherein in paragraph Nos. 9, 10, 11 & 12 of the
judgment, it has been held that in a case involving recovery of commercial
quantity of narcotic drug or psychotropic substance, the Court would have to
mandatorily record the satisfaction in terms of the rider contained in Section 37
Page No.# 9/10
of the NDPS Act. Court would have to record satisfaction that there are grounds
for believing that accused is not guilty of offence alleged and that he is not likely
to commit any offence while on bail. Further it has been held that the Courts
should be slow in granting even regular bail to the accused persons who has the
criminal antecedents.
17. From the record, it is seen that till date, the charge could not be framed
due to absence of one of the co-accused. However, endeavour has been made
by the learned Trial Court below to procure the attendance of the co-accused
person who is shown as an absconder in the charge-sheet and NBWA has
already been issued against him. So, considering the entire materials of the
case, it also cannot be said that there was an inordinate delay and as stated
above, the charge could not be framed only due to absence of one of the co-
accused.
18. In The State of Meghalaya Vs. Lalrintluanga Sailo [Special Leave
to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 16021/2023], wherein, in paragraph No. 8 of the
judgment, it has been held that ” thus, the provisions under Section 37(1)(b)(ii)
of the NDPS Act and the decisions referred supra revealing the consistent view
of this Court that while considering the application for bail made by an accused
involved in an offence under NDPS Act a liberal approach ignoring the mandate
under Section 37 of the NDPS Act is impermissible. Recording a finding
mandated under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, which is sine qua non for granting
bail to an accused under the NDPS Act cannot be avoided while passing orders
on such applications.”
19. In the light of discussion made above and also considering the seriousness
Page No.# 10/10
of the offence and also considering the fact that there is a prima facie case
against the present accused/ petitioner and further considering the view
expressed by the Apex Court in the case laws referred to hereinabove, this
Court is of the view that it is not a fit case to enlarge the accused/ petitioner on
bail at this stage. More so, the delay also cannot be considered as inordinate
delay and in the same time, it is also seen that the learned Court below took all
endeavor for procuring the attendance of the co-accused. Hence, the present
bail application stands rejected.
20. In terms of above, this bail application stands disposed of.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant