Jammu and Kashmir High Court Grants Bail in Landmark NDPS Case

Statements Under Section 67 Deemed Inadmissible; Call Records Insufficient for Conviction

In a significant ruling, the Jammu and Kashmir High Court has granted bail to Sareed Ahmed Ganie, who was implicated in a narcotics case involving commercial quantities of contraband under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act). The decision, delivered by Justice Sanjay Dhar, underscores the inadmissibility of confessional statements made to Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB) officials under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, reaffirming the Supreme Court's stance from the Tofan Singh case.

The case, which arose from Crime No. 15/2024, involved the interception of a bus carrying substantial quantities of narcotic drugs, leading to the arrest of several individuals, including the petitioner, Sareed Ahmed Ganie. The prosecution alleged that the seized drugs were intended for Ganie, relying heavily on confessional statements and call detail records (CDR) to establish his involvement.

Justice Dhar emphasized that the Supreme Court's ruling in Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu renders Section 67 statements inadmissible in NDPS trials. Consequently, the statements obtained from the accused during NCB interrogations cannot be used as evidence, significantly impacting the prosecution's case.

Furthermore, the court noted that while CDR data showed contact between Ganie and co-accused, it lacked corroborating evidence such as voice recordings, thus failing to sufficiently establish his guilt. The court concluded that there are reasonable grounds to believe that Ganie is not guilty of the alleged offenses under Sections 8, 21, 22, and 29 of the NDPS Act.

In granting bail, the court imposed stringent conditions, including furnishing sureties, non-contact with prosecution witnesses, regular court appearances, and a prohibition on similar offenses. Ganie is also required to surrender his passport and seek court permission before leaving the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir.

This judgment marks a pivotal moment in the interpretation of evidence under the NDPS Act, reinforcing the importance of adhering to established legal standards and safeguarding individual rights against procedural overreach.

Bottom Line:

Section 67 statements made to NCB officials under NDPS Act are inadmissible as evidence as per Supreme Court's judgment in Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2021) 4 SCC 1 - Call Detail Records (CDR) alone, without corroborating evidence like voice recordings, may not be sufficient for conviction under NDPS Act.

Statutory provision(s): NDPS Act Sections 8, 21, 22, 29, 37; Section 67 of NDPS Act; Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).

Sareed Ahmed Ganie v. UOI, (Jammu and Kashmir) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2796548