Bar On Bail Under NDPS Act Not Attracted When No Contraband Recovered From Accused Who Was Merely In Contact With Co-Accused: Delhi HC

The Delhi High Court has held that mere contact with co-accused person found in possession of a contraband cannot be treated to be corroborative material in absence of substantive material found against such an accused.

Justice Amit Mahajan said that when no recovery is affected from an accused, merely because such an accused was allegedly in touch with the co-accused persons, the bar on grant of bail under Section 37 of the NDPS Act will not be attracted.

“The Courts are not expected to accept every allegation made by the prosecution as a gospel truth,” the Court said.

Section 37 states that bail should not be granted to an accused unless the accused is able to satisfy twin conditions i.e. reasonable ground for believing that the accused is not guilty of such an offence and that the accused would not commit an offence or is not likely to commit an offence, if granted bail.

Justice Mahajan granted bail to a man in an FIR registered in 2022 by the Narcotics Control Bureau for offences under Sections 8(c), 21(c), 22(c), 23, 25, 27A and 2 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

The NCB had seized 50 kg heroin, 47.06 kg suspected narcotic drugs and Rs. 30 lakh cash along with other articles from the house of a co-accused. Based on his disclosure statement, some other persons were apprehended.

During the course of investigation, the statement of the applicant was recorded wherein he had disclosed that he had come to India in 2015 on tourist visa and had not returned. He said that he was still staying in India on UNHCR card.

It was his case that he was arrested for the sole act of bringing a container to the godown, wherein the heroine was allegedly manufactured, in two complaint cases filed by the NCB. It was submitted that he could not have been arrested for a single act in two cases.

Noting that no recovery of any contraband or cash was made from the applicant accused, the Court said:

“At this stage, the only evidence brought on record by the prosecution is the disclosure statement of the co-accused persons as well as the applicant, and the CDR connectivity between the applicant and the co-accused persons.”

The Court concluded that at this stage, there was no other evidence to show that the applicant was involved in any manner with the co accused persons.

Justice Mahajan noted that the applicant was in incarceration since May 19, 2022, and charges were yet to be framed in the present case.

The Court said that the applicant cannot be made to spend the entire period of trial in custody especially when the trial is likely to take considerable time.

“Admittedly no recovery has been affected from the applicant and in such circumstances merely because the applicant was allegedly in touch with the co-accused persons, the bar of Section 37 of the NDPS Act is not attracted,” the Court said.

It added: “The Courts are not expected to accept every allegation made by the prosecution as a gospel truth. Mere contact with other co - accused person who was found in possession of contraband cannot be treated to be corroborative material in absence of substantive material found against the accused.”

Title: ABDUL RAB v. NARCOTICS CONTROL BUREAU

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 101

Click here to read order