Benefit Of Tofan Singh Judgment May Be Taken During Regular Bail Hearing ; SC Sets Aside Anticipatory Bail Granted To NDPS Accused

The Supreme Court observed that an accused under NDPS Act may be able to take advantage of the Tofan Singh judgment at the time of arguing the regular bail application or at the time of final hearing after conclusion of the trial.

To grant anticipatory bail in a case of this nature is not really warranted, the bench comprising Justices Indira Banerjee and V. Ramasubramanian observed while setting aside an order granting anticipatory bail to an accused under NDPS Act.

In this case, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana had allowed an anticipatory bail application filed by accused implicated for alleged offences under Sections 17, 27A and 85 of the NDPS Act, 1985. For this, the High Court noted that no recovery was effected from the accused and that they had been implicated only on the basis of the disclosure statement of the main accused. The judgment of the Supreme Court in Tofan Singh vs. State of Tamil Nadu (2021) 4 SCC 1 was also noticed.

Assailing this judgment, the State of Haryana approached the Apex Court. The accused submitted that he was granted regular bail after the charge-sheet was filed and that therefore, nothing survives in the appeal. Disagreeing with the said submission, the bench noticed that the Special Court's order was passed in pursuance of the anticipatory bail granted by the High Court.

"In cases of this nature, the respondents may be able to take advantage of the decision in Tofan Singh vs. State of Tamil Nadu (supra), perhaps at the time of arguing the regular bail  application or at the time of final hearing after conclusion of the trial.. To grant anticipatory bail in a case of this nature is not really warranted. Therefore, we are of the view that the High Court fell into an error in granting anticipatory bail to the respondents.", the bench observed.

In Tofan Singh, the Supreme court (by 2:1 majority) held that officers of the Central & State agencies appointed under Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act are police officers and therefore the 'confessional' statements recorded by them under Section 67 are not admissible. Justices Rohinton Fali Nariman and Navin Sinha formed the majority, while Justice Indira Banerjee had given a dissenting opinion. 

Case details

State of Haryana vs Samarth Kumar | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 622 | CrA 1005-1006 OF 2022 | 20 July 2022 | Justices Indira Banerjee and V. Ramasubramanian

Headnotes

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ; Section 438 - Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ; Section 37 - Appeal against High Court order that granted anticipatory bail on the ground that no recovery was effected from the accused and that they had been implicated only on the basis of the disclosure statement of the main accused - Allowed -The respondents may be able to take advantage of the decision in Tofan Singh vs. State of Tamil Nadu (2021) 4 SCC 1 , perhaps at the time of arguing the regular bail application or at the time of final hearing after conclusion of the trial. To grant anticipatory bail in a case of this nature is not really warranted. 

Click here to Read/Download Order