Facts of the Case

The petitioner, Sahil Gupta, approached the High Court of Punjab and Haryana seeking regular bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in connection with FIR No. 116 dated 04.06.2022, registered under Sections 22, 25 and 29 of the NDPS Act, 1985 at Police Station Civil Lines, Patiala, District Patiala.

The prosecution case originated from secret information received by the Police regarding a Tata container bearing registration No. PB-10-HQ-1295. According to the information, the vehicle was being driven by Ranjit Singh @ Raju, with Manjeet Singh @ Mintu acting as conductor, while Sohan Singh @ Soni was also allegedly associated with the transportation. The vehicle was stated to be carrying pulses, rice and clothes from Delhi.

The vehicle had earlier been impounded on 03.06.2022 due to non-production of GST bills, and the concerned persons had been called for verification on 07.06.2022. The secret information further alleged that the accused had previously been involved in the business of drugs and that Sohan Singh @ Soni had other cases registered against him. It was alleged that intoxicating tablets had been brought from Delhi in the closed container and that an attempt was being made to secure release of the loaded goods by paying a fine.

Acting upon the information, the Investigating Agency proceeded to the office of the Excise and Taxation Department, Patiala, where Ranjit Singh @ Raju and Manjeet Singh @ Mintu were present. Sohan Singh @ Soni was not present at that time. The two persons present were arrested and the vehicle was searched.

During the search, boxes containing the following intoxicant tablets were allegedly recovered:

  • LOMOTIL – 1,00,020 tablets
  • ALPRASAFE-0.5 – 4,800 tablets
  • NITRAVET-10 – 180 tablets

Following the arrest of Ranjit Singh @ Raju and Manjeet Singh @ Mintu on 04.06.2022, Sohan Singh @ Soni was arrested on 05.06.2022. During interrogation, Sohan Singh allegedly disclosed that the petitioner, Sahil Gupta, was running a medical store under the name of Aggarwal Medical Store at Azad Nagar, Sabzi Mandi, Delhi, and that intoxicating tablets had been purchased from him for Rs. 30,000.

Thereafter, the petitioner was served with a notice under Section 41(1) Cr.P.C. to join the investigation on 09.06.2022. During the course of investigation, it was alleged that the petitioner disclosed that Sohan Singh @ Raju had regular dealings with him and that they communicated through a mobile number. It was further alleged that Sohan Singh used to purchase intoxicating tablets from the petitioner without bills. The petitioner was subsequently arrested in the case.

Issues Involved

The principal issues before the High Court were:

  1. Whether the petitioner was entitled to regular bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. despite the alleged recovery of a huge quantity of intoxicating tablets from the co-accused.
  2. Whether the implication of the petitioner primarily through the disclosure statement of a co-accused constituted sufficient material to deny regular bail.
  3. Whether call detail records showing telephonic contact between the petitioner and the co-accused, without the contents of the conversations being available on record, were sufficient at the bail stage to establish the alleged offence.
  4. Whether the absence of any recovery from the petitioner and his status as a first-time offender justified relaxation of the rigour of Section 37 of the NDPS Act to an extent.
  5. Whether prolonged custody and the fact that none of the 18 prosecution witnesses had been examined supported the grant of regular bail.

Petitioner’s Arguments

The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner had been named only in the disclosure statement of his co-accused and that such a statement had no evidentiary value. It was argued that confessional statements made to Investigating Agencies were inadmissible in evidence.

The petitioner relied upon the following judgments:

Tofan Singh vs State of Tamil Nadu, 2020 AIR (Supreme Court) 5592
Reliance was placed on this judgment in support of the contention concerning the inadmissibility and evidentiary limitations of confessional statements made to officers exercising powers under the NDPS Act.

Rakesh Kumar Singla vs Union of India, 2021 (1) RCR (Criminal) 704
This decision was relied upon in support of the petitioner’s challenge to implication founded upon disclosure statements and related material.

State by (NCB) Bengaluru vs Pallulabid Ahmad Arimutta & Anr., 2022 (1) RCR (Criminal) 762
The petitioner relied upon this judgment while contesting the evidentiary sufficiency of disclosure statements and alleged corroborative material in NDPS proceedings.

Surinder Kumar Khanna vs Intelligence Officer, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, 2018 (3) RCR (Criminal) 954
Reliance was placed upon this decision in relation to the legal effect of a co-accused’s statement and the evidentiary basis required to sustain allegations against an accused.

Sanjeev Chandra Aggarwal & Anr. vs Union of India, 2021 (4) RCR (Criminal) 590
This judgment was also cited in support of the petitioner’s case concerning the evidentiary value of statements and the material relied upon for implication in an NDPS matter.

The petitioner further argued that no recovery had been effected from him. It was submitted that he was a first-time offender. The petitioner also stated that his father, Naveen Kumar Gupta, was a registered pharmacist and that a copy of the relevant licence/certificate had been attached with the petition as Annexure P-1.

It was further contended that even if the petitioner had been in telephonic contact with Sohan Singh @ Raju, such contact by itself could not establish the alleged offence because the contents of the conversations were not available on record. According to the petitioner, mere call detail records showing calls between the parties could not, by themselves, establish commission of the offence.

The petitioner accordingly sought regular bail on the additional ground that the investigation had been completed and none of the 18 prosecution witnesses had been examined.

Respondent’s Arguments

The learned State counsel opposed the grant of regular bail.

The State contended that a huge recovery had been effected from the petitioner’s co-accused. It was further argued that the petitioner had been specifically named in the disclosure statement of Sohan Singh @ Raju, who was duly named in the FIR.

The State also relied upon alleged corroborative evidence in the form of telephone calls between the petitioner and Sohan Singh @ Raju. On this basis, it was contended that the petitioner did not deserve the concession of regular bail.

Court Order / Findings

After hearing both sides, the High Court observed that the petitioner had been named in the disclosure statement of his co-accused, Sohan Singh @ Raju.

The Court held that the evidentiary value of the disclosure statement, together with the alleged corroborative evidence of telephone calls between the petitioner and Sohan Singh @ Raju, would be a matter for adjudication during the trial.

The Court took specific note of the following circumstances:

  • No recovery had been effected from the petitioner.
  • The petitioner had clean antecedents, with no other FIR registered against him.
  • The petitioner was a first-time offender.
  • None of the 18 prosecution witnesses had been examined.
  • The trial was therefore not likely to conclude in the near future.
  • The petitioner had been named in a disclosure statement without any corresponding recovery from him.

In these circumstances, the High Court observed that the provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act could be relaxed to an extent because the petitioner was a first-time offender and had been named in a disclosure statement without any corresponding recovery from him.

Without commenting upon the merits of the case, the High Court allowed the petition and ordered the release of the petitioner, Sahil Gupta, on regular bail subject to furnishing bail bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the concerned Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate.

Important Clarification

This judgment highlights that, at the stage of consideration of regular bail in an NDPS case, the Court may examine the specific role attributed to the accused and the nature of the material connecting the accused with the alleged offence.

The order is particularly significant because the High Court distinguished the petitioner’s position on the basis that no recovery had been effected from him, he had clean antecedents, he was a first-time offender, and his implication arose through a co-accused’s disclosure statement accompanied by alleged call records whose evidentiary value remained a matter for trial.

The Court did not finally determine the admissibility, reliability or evidentiary worth of the disclosure statement or telephone-call material. Instead, it expressly observed that the evidentiary value of such material would be adjudicated during the trial.

Therefore, the order should not be understood as laying down that every accused named in a co-accused’s disclosure statement is automatically entitled to bail under the NDPS Act. The decision turned upon the combined factual circumstances of the case, including absence of recovery from the petitioner, first-time-offender status, clean antecedents, non-examination of all 18 prosecution witnesses and the likelihood of delay in conclusion of the trial.

A further record-specific point is that the judgment text states that the petitioner had been in custody since 16.04.2022. This date is reproduced as appearing in the order and should be read with the official judicial record, particularly because the FIR mentioned in the judgment is dated 04.06.2022. No alteration or independent correction of the date has been made here.

Sections Involved

Section 22 of the NDPS Act, 1985
Relates to punishment for contravention concerning psychotropic substances, subject to the nature and quantity involved and other statutory requirements.

Section 25 of the NDPS Act, 1985
Concerns punishment for allowing premises, vehicles or other specified property to be used for commission of an offence under the Act, subject to fulfilment of statutory ingredients.

Section 29 of the NDPS Act, 1985
Deals with abetment and criminal conspiracy in relation to offences under the NDPS Act.

Section 37 of the NDPS Act, 1985
Contains special restrictions governing the grant of bail in specified NDPS offences. In the present case, the High Court observed that its provisions could be relaxed to an extent considering that the petitioner was a first-time offender and had been named in a disclosure statement without corresponding recovery from him.

Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Confers special powers upon the High Court and Court of Session regarding grant of bail.

Section 41(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
The judgment records that the petitioner was served with a notice under this provision to join the investigation.

Link to download the order - https://www.mytaxexpert.co.in/uploads/1783677484_2110compressed.pdf

Disclaimer

This content is shared strictly for general information and knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the information from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal, professional, or advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim all liability arising from the use of this content. The material has been prepared with the assistance of AI tools.