Delhi High Court has granted bail to a person accused under sections 20 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act by noting that the Prosecution failed to show any medical evidence to support its narrative that the accused is a drug addict.
While granting bail, the Single Bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru further observed that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the accused might be acquitted of offences that he's charged with.
In the present matter, a bail application was moved by the accused person who was arrested by the Narcotics Control Bureau for allegedly smuggling and dealing with the commercial quantity of charas.
To argue against the bail application, the NCB heavily relied upon the 'voluntary statements' of the accused recorded under section 67 of the NDPS Act. The agency also cited various recoveries which were made in pursuance of the section 67 statement of the accused.
The court, however, took note of the fact that the issue of whether statements made under section 67 of the NDPS Act are admissible evidence has been referred to a larger bench of the Supreme Court in Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu.
The court further observed that even if such self-incriminating statements made under section 67 are accepted as admissible, they are a weak form of evidence and can be used only to corroborate other evidence.
The court also took cognisance of the fact that the disclosure statement of one of the accused doesn't correspond with the recovery made from him.
After perusing these submissions, the court observed that:
'Considering the above, this Court is of the view that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioner may be acquitted. Admittedly, the petitioner is not involved in any other criminal case and there is no reason to believe that he would commit a similar offence, if released. It appears to be the prosecution's case that the petitioner had begun dealing in drugs to feed his addiction. But, as noticed earlier, there is nothing on record to establish that the petitioner is a drug addict.'
The court also clarified that observations made in this order are only prima facie and solely for the purposes of examining whether the petitioner ought to be released on bail.
The Petitioner in the present case was represented by Mr Akshay Bhandari and Mr Digvijay Singh.
Click here to download the Judgment