CASE TITLE:
Union of India (NCB) vs. Khalil Uddin
DATE OF ORDER:
21 October 2022
BENCH:
CJI UU Lalit and Justice Bela M. Trivedi
PARTIES:
Appellant: Union of India (NCB)
Respondent: Khalil Uddin
SUBJECT
The bail that was granted to two defendants in an NDPS case was recently revoked by the Supreme Court. According to the bench of CJI UU Lalit and Justice Bela M. Trivedi, the High Court could not and ought not to have released the accused on bail in light of the mandate of section 37 of the NDPS Act.
IMPORTANT PROVISIONS
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985
- Section 37 -Offences to be cognizable and non-bailable. - (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), - (a) every offence punishable under this Act shall be cognizable; (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.
- Section 67 -Power to call for information, etc. - Any officer referred to in section 42 who is authorised in this behalf by the Central Government or a State Government may, during the course of any enquiry in connection with the contravention of any provision of this Act, - (a) call for information from any person for the purpose of satisfying himself whether there has been any contravention of the provisions of this Act or any rule or order made thereunder; (b) require any person to produce or deliver any document or thing useful or relevant to the enquiry; (c) examine any person acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case.
BRIEF FACTS
- A co-accused named Md. Jakir Hussain’s car was found to contain illegal substances, including around 13 kg of morphine. During the course of the investigation, it was discovered that the motor vehicle was registered in the name of Md.Nizam Uddin, who had signed a sale letter and given the accused Md. Abdul Hai custody of the vehicle.
- It was also discovered that the accused Md. Jakir Hussain was the driver employed by the accused Md. Abdul Hai, and that the accused Khalil Uddin, a tea shop owner, was to receive the contraband material in question.
- After being held in detention for over a year, the High Court ordered the release of both of the aforementioned accused on bail in a decision that is currently being challenged. The instant appeals have been given priority despite doubts about the accused’s relief being granted.
ISSUES RAISED
- Whether the role played by said Md. Jakir Hussain could get connected with both the accused?
JUDGMENT ANALYSIS
- His owner’s accused Abdul Hai is mentioned in Md. Jakir Hussain’s statement that was recorded in accordance with Section 67 of the Act. The bench was aware that this Court had made a ruling in Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu on the legality and scope of such utterances under Section 67.
- The strict application of the law established by this Court in Tofan Singh was upheld in State by (NCB) Bengaluru vs. Pallulabid Ahmad Arimutta & Anr. The situation, however supposedly later repudiated, currently stands on a different basis based on the facts that are on record and the strength of Md. Nizam Uddin’s statement. In our opinion, the High Court could not have released the accused on bail and should not have done so in light of the requirements of Section 37 of the Act. Therefore, we grant these appeals, overturn the High Court’s judgement, and order the immediate detention of both appellants.
CONCLUSION
The charge-sheet has been submitted, according to information provided to the court. Given the situation, it was mandated that the Trial Court take up the case and wrap up the litigation as soon as possible - preferably within six months of receiving this order.
Learn the practical aspects of CrPC HERE, CPC HERE, IPC HERE, Evidence Act HERE, Family Laws HERE, DV Act HERE
