"Implication Was Based Primarily On Memorandum Of Co-Accused U/S 27 Of Evidence Act": MP High Court Grants Bail In NDPS Case
Image by: Shubha Patidar
The Madhya Pradesh High Court at its Indore bench granted bail to the accused, in a case under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS). The court held that the evidence against the accused was based solely on the co-accused's memorandum which was insufficient to deny bail.
The case was focused on whether the accused's implication, based only on a co-accused's statement, met the requirements of Section 37 of the NDPS Act.
Justice Pranay Verma stated that “The implication of the applicant appears to be primarily on the basis of memorandum of co-accused Rahul recorded under Section 27 of the Evidence Act and his own memorandum. No recovery has been made from the applicant and he was not present on the spot at the time of recovery.”
Further, WhatsApp chats were presented as evidence which did not conclusively prove the accused's involvement. The court observed that “ Whatsapp chats which have been produced by the respondent do not conclusively point to the involvement of the applicant.”
The court discussed that the bar put by the NDPS Act cannot be attracted since neither the WhatsApp chats nor any payment in this matter could directly be connected to the applicant.
“ The payment which has allegedly been made in the matter has not been shown to be directly connected to the applicant. There does not appear to be any other legally admissible evidence against the applicant. In such circumstances, the bar under Section 37 of the NDPS Act is not attracted to the present case”
The Respondent contended that the bail should not be granted and cited Section 37 of the NDPS Act, which sets standards for granting bail in narcotics-related offences. The respondent argued that the accused had confessed under Section 67 of the Evidence Act,. The prosecution further introduced WhatsApp conversations to link the applicant to the drug transaction.
Justice Verma stated that the custodial interrogation was no longer required since the investigation had been concluded and a charge sheet was filed. The applicant was in custody since April 2024 and with no criminal antecedents, the court held that further detention was unwarranted.
The court directed the release of the applicant on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs. 2,00,000 along with one solvent surety. The order includes conditions, requiring the accused to appear regularly before the trial court and follow the stipulations under Section 437(3) of the Cr.P.C
Case title: Kachrulal Versus Union Of India
Case No.: MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 38010 of 2024