Union of India Vs Themboi @ Themboi Singson (Supreme Court of India)
Summary: The Supreme Court allowed the Union of India’s appeal and set aside the Gauhati High Court order dated 03.10.2024 granting bail to Themboi @ Smt. Themboi Singson in an NDPS case. The respondent was accused, along with others, in DRI Case No. 16/CL/NDPS/HEROIN/DRI/GZU/2023-24 for offences punishable under Sections 8(c), 21(c), 22(c), 23(c) and 27A of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. The prosecution alleged that the accused were members of a cartel or gang dealing in narcotics.
Read HC Judgment in this case: Co-Accused’s Section 67 Statement Alone Cannot Deny NDPS Bail: Gauhati HC
Before the Supreme Court, the Union submitted that bail had been granted after the respondent had undergone incarceration for only about one year despite the serious nature of the allegations. It pointed to contraband stated to be worth more than ₹7.50 crore, call detail records allegedly showing multiple and regular communications between the respondent and co-accused, and her bank statement showing substantial amounts transferred in tranches to other co-accused within a short period. When the Court asked how the respondent, described as a housewife, possessed such substantial amounts for transfer to co-accused, no satisfactory explanation was forthcoming.
The Supreme Court held that the Gauhati High Court had misdirected itself while considering the bail application. It emphasised that offences under the NDPS Act were increasing and caused damage to society at large rather than merely affecting private individuals. More importantly, the Court considered the call detail records and bank transactions significant circumstances which the High Court ought to have considered more consciously and sensitively. On an overall consideration, the Supreme Court found that a strong case had been made out against the respondent and that granting bail merely on the basis of approximately one year of custody was improper.
The Gauhati High Court had taken a different view while granting bail. It noted that no contraband was recovered from the physical possession of Themboi Singson, who was arrested at Maa Kamakhya Grand Hotel while the heroin had been recovered from two other persons at Lamka Guest House. The High Court considered that the prosecution had not shown any previous criminal history of the petitioner and regarded the material then available against her principally as the disclosure statement of co-accused. Relying upon State v. Pallulabid Ahmed Arimutta & Others and Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu, it observed that a confessional statement recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act is inadmissible at trial and that a co-accused’s confessional/voluntary statement by itself could not furnish reasonable grounds for believing that the petitioner was guilty. It had consequently ordered her release on a ₹1 lakh bail bond with two local solvent sureties and stringent conditions.
The Supreme Court ultimately found the High Court’s grant of bail unsustainable in view of the additional circumstances reflected in the respondent’s call detail records and bank transactions with the co-accused. It therefore allowed the appeal, set aside the Gauhati High Court’s bail order and directed Themboi @ Smt. Themboi Singson to surrender before the court below within two weeks. Thus, while the High Court had principally relied upon absence of physical recovery, lack of criminal antecedents, incarceration and the evidentiary limitations of co-accused statements under Section 67, the Supreme Court considered the surrounding electronic and financial material sufficient to render the grant of bail improper.
Cases Discussed
- Mohd. Muslim v. State (NCT of Delhi), AIR 2023 SC 164 — Cited before the Gauhati High Court regarding constitutional limits on an excessively literal application of Section 37 of the NDPS Act and prolonged incarceration.
- Narcotics Control Bureau v. Mohit Agarwal, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 891 — Relied upon by DRI for the proposition that long incarceration alone does not justify bail without satisfying Section 37.
- Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI, (2022) 10 SCC 51 — Referred to regarding prolonged detention and applicability of Section 436A CrPC.
- Raghubir Singh v. State of Bihar, (1986) 4 SCC 481 — Referred to for speedy trial as a dimension of Article 21.
- Ravi Prakash v. State of Odisha — Referred to regarding prolonged incarceration and conditional liberty notwithstanding the statutory embargo under Section 37.
- State v. Pallulabid Ahmed Arimutta & Others, (2022) 12 SCC 63 — Relied upon by the High Court while evaluating the evidentiary value of the co-accused’s disclosure.
- Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2021) 4 SCC 1 — Relied upon for inadmissibility of confessional statements recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act.
FULL TEXT OF THE SUPREME COURT ORDER
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. Leave granted.
3. The present appeal is directed against the order dated 03.10.2024, passed by the Gauhati High Court in Bail Application No. 2752 of 2024, by which the bail has been granted to the respondent.
4. The respondent along with others is accused in DRI Case NO. 16/CL/NDPS/HEROIN/DRI/GZU/2023-24 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 8(c)/21(c) /22(c)/23(c)/ 27A of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the “NDPS Act”)
5. The allegation against the accused was that they were part of a cartel/gang which dealt in narcotics.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the respondent was under incarceration for only one year and bail has been granted, which is improper. It was submitted that the recovery was of contraband worth more than Rs. 7,50,000,000/- (Rupees Seven Crores Fifty Lakhs). It was further contended that the call detail reports show multiple and constant talk between the respondent and the other co-accused. It was further contended that her bank statement discloses that substantial amounts have been transmitted by her in favour of the other co-accused within a few days.
7. Learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that she is a lady and was under custody for more than one year, having no criminal antecedents. It was further contended that she is a housewife.
8. At this juncture, when the Court made a query to the learned counsel for the respondent as to how a housewife could have such a huge amount to transfer it, and that too in favour of the co-accused, no satisfactory reply was forthcoming.
9. Learned counsel for the respondent further contended that such matters are to be decided during trial, but keeping the respondent in custody would not serve the purpose of justice.
10. Having considered the matter in its entirety, we find that the order passed by the High Court cannot be sustained. At the outset, we indicate that the High Court has clearly misdirected itself while considering the prayer for bail of the respondent. It has completely lost sight of the fact that offences under NDPS Act, are increasing every day and the damage is caused to the society at large and not restricted between private individuals.
11. Further and more importantly, in the present case, when the call detail records of the respondent indicated that she was in regular telephonic contact with the other co-accused and the bank statement of her account also revealed that money in tranches, were transferred in favour of the other co-accused, the High Court ought to have been more conscious and sensitive to the fact that on an overall circumspection, a strong case had been made out against the respondent and then granting bail on her being custody for only one year was not proper.
12. For the reasons aforesaid, the appeal is allowed. The impugned order granting bail to the respondent is set aside. The respondent is directed to surrender before the Court below within two weeks from today positively.
13. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
Leave granted.
2. Criminal Appeal stands allowed in terms of the signed order placed on the file.
3. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
