State By Narcotics Control Bureau Vs Pallulabid Ahamad Arimutta & Anr. (Supreme Court of India)
Summary: The proceedings arose from an investigation conducted by the Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB) following the interception of accused Nos. 1 and 2 on 22 March 2019 while they were allegedly preparing to travel to Doha by Oman Airways. The investigating agency seized 965 grams of amphetamine, 30 grams of cocaine and 4.525 kilograms of hashish from their possession. Pallulabid Ahamad Arimutta and Mohammed Majid Saleem, arrayed as accused Nos. 3 and 4, were implicated on the basis of voluntary statements attributed to the other accused, identification through photographs and statements attributed to the petitioners themselves. Proceedings involved Sections 8(c), 20(b), 21, 22, 28 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.
Read HC Judgment in this case: NDPS Bail Granted Where Only Co-Accused Statements Linked Petitioners to Drug Seizure: Karnataka HC
In the related Karnataka High Court order, the Court observed that no narcotic drugs had been recovered at the instance of accused Nos. 3 and 4 and that, apart from the voluntary statements, the prosecution had not placed other material connecting them with the alleged offences. It held that the prosecution would have to establish their connection through evidence at trial. On the facts before it, the High Court considered that the rigour of Section 37 of the NDPS Act was not attracted to these petitioners and granted bail under Section 439 CrPC. Each petitioner was directed to furnish a personal bond of Rs.1,00,000 with two sureties and comply with conditions relating to witness protection, court attendance, travel restrictions and reporting to the investigating officer.
In the Supreme Court proceedings, the supplied order records that delay was condoned in SLP(Crl.) Diary No.22702 of 2020 and that the NCB succeeded in SLP (Crl.) No.1569/2021. For reasons contained in a separately signed order, the Supreme Court cancelled the bail granted to Mohmmed Afzal (A-2) and directed him to surrender before the Sessions Court/Special Judge (NDPS) within two weeks for being taken into custody. The remaining petitions were disposed of in terms of the signed order, and pending interlocutory applications were disposed of. The supplied Supreme Court extract does not reproduce the signed order’s reasoning; consequently, the High Court’s findings concerning accused Nos. 3 and 4 must be distinguished from the Supreme Court’s express direction cancelling bail for accused No. 2.
FULL TEXT OF THE SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT/ORDER
Delay condoned in SLP(Crl.)…..Diary No.22702 of 2020.
For the reasons stated in the signed order, the petitioner-NCB succeeds in SLP (Crl.) No. 1569/2021. The bail granted to the respondent-Mohmmed Afzal [A-2] is cancelled forthwith at this stage and he is directed to surrender before the Sessions Court/Special Judge (NDPS) within a period of two weeks, for being taken into custody.
The petitions are disposed of in terms of the signed order. Pending interlocutory application, if any, stands disposed of.
