CASE TITLE:
State By NCB Bengaluru Vs Pallubid Ahma Arimutta And Anr
JUDGEMENT DATE :
10THJanuary, 2022
JUDGE(S):
Hon’ble Justice N.V. RAMANA, Justice Hima Kohli and Justice Surya Kant
PARTIES :
Petitioner: STATE BY NCB BENGALURU
Respondent: PALLUBID AHMA ARIMUTTA AND ANR
IMPORTANT PROVISIONS
Section 67 of the NDPS ACT.
SUBJECT
A Division bench of Chief Justice N.V Ramana, Justice Hima Kohli, and Justice Surya Kant observed that an accused cannot seek parity with the co-accused, and that no such benefit could have been extended to him under Section 37 of the Act when he was found to be in conscious possession of commercial quantities of psychotropic substances, as contemplated by the NDPS Act.
BRIEF FACTS
- The observation came in response to a petition filed by the Narcotic Control Bureau (Petitioner – NCB) challenging the order in which the High Court of Karnataka released PALLULABID AHMAD ARIMUTTA & ORS (Respondents) on bail for offences punishable under Sections 8(c), 8A r/w Sections 20(b), 21, 22, 27A, 27B, 28, and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act).
- The NCB had received information that two people, Nausheer Mohammed [first accused] and NoushadMannakkamvalli [second accused], were planning to transport drugs from Bengaluru International Airport to Doha on Oman Airways. Upon receiving such information, a team of NCB officers immediately arrived at the airport and searched the luggage, seizing 4.525 Kgs of hashish, 965 Grams of amphetamine, and 30 Grams of cocaine.
- As a result, they were arrested alongside others (Respondents). All of the accused, however, were granted bail.
ADVANCED ARGUMENTS BY THE PETITIONER
Mr. S.V. Raju and Mr. K. M. Nataraj, both appearing for the petitioner-NCB in the related petitions, have challenged the impugned orders on the grounds that the High Court erred in finding that the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act are not attracted to the facts of the present cases; and that none of the pre-conditions stipulated in Section 37 of the NDPS Act, which begins with a non-obstante clause, had been met in the instant cases for granting any relief to the respondents, and that a concession was granted to the respondents based on an incorrect presumption that there is a reasonable ground for believing that they are not guilty of such offence.
ADVANCED ARGUMENTS BY THE RESPONDENT
The respondents claimed that no substantial evidence was available to the prosecution at the time of their arrest to link them to the allegations of drug trafficking levelled against them.
ANALYSIS BY THE COURT
- After reviewing the submissions, the division Bench concluded that, with the exception of the voluntary statements of the first and second accused and the respondents themselves recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, no substantial evidence linking the respondents to the allegations of drug trafficking was available with the prosecution at the time of their arrest.
- The prosecution has not denied that, with the exception of 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 defined by the NDPS Act, added the Bench.
- The Court relied on Tofan Singh vs. State of Tamil Nadu, which held that a confessional statement recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act is inadmissible in the trial of an NDPS Act offence. Despite the aforementioned decision, the arrests made by the petitioner-NCB on the basis of the respondents' or co-confessions/voluntary accused's statements 6 (2021) 4 SCC 1 Page 9 of 12 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 63 Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) No. 1569 OF 2021 under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, cannot be used to overturn the impugned bail orders.
CONCLUSION
- Justice Hima Kohli stated that the CDR details of some of the accused, as well as allegations of evidence tampering on the part of one of the respondents, will be examined at the trial stage.
- As a result, the Supreme Court dismissed the petitioner-Special NCB's Leave Petitions seeking cancellation of bail granted to the respective respondents.
- The bail granted to the second accused was cancelled by the Apex Court, and he was ordered to surrender before the Sessions Court/Special Judge (NDPS) within two weeks or be taken into custody.
Click here to download the original copy of the judgement
