Court finds lack of prima facie evidence for serious charges under Section 27A of the NDPS Act and deems confessional statements inadmissible.
In a significant development, the Jammu and Kashmir High Court, presided over by Justice Rajesh Sekhri, has granted bail to Mazeed Ali, an accused in a narcotics case under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act. The bail was granted due to insufficient evidence to support the charges under Section 27A of the NDPS Act, which pertains to financing illicit traffic and harbouring offenders.
The case arose when Mazeed Ali was implicated in an FIR registered by the Police Station Majalta, Udhampur, following the recovery of contraband from a co-accused, Latif Ali. The prosecution alleged that Mazeed Ali was involved in financing the illicit activities, based on the statement of the co-accused and financial transactions linked to him. However, the court found no substantial evidence to corroborate these claims.
Justice Sekhri emphasized that the allegations did not meet the necessary threshold for charges under Section 27A. The court also highlighted the inadmissibility of confessional statements recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, following precedents set by the Supreme Court in the Tofan Singh case, which ruled such statements inadmissible under Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act.
The court observed that while financial transactions were noted in Mazeed Ali's bank accounts, there was no evidence to suggest that these were used to finance illicit activities. Furthermore, the contraband was recovered from the possession of Latif Ali, and not from Mazeed Ali.
The judgment also noted that both Latif Ali and another co-accused, Sanjay Kumar, had already been granted bail, with no subsequent moves by the prosecution to seek the cancellation of their bails. The court's decision reflects a careful balance between the gravity of charges under the NDPS Act and the fundamental legal principle of presumption of innocence until proven guilty.
Mazeed Ali has been granted bail on the condition that he furnishes a surety bond of Rs. 1 lakh and adheres to several conditions, including not leaving the trial court's jurisdiction without permission, not tampering with evidence, and cooperating with the investigation.
The case highlights the importance of adhering to due process and the rules of evidence, especially in cases involving serious charges under the NDPS Act.
Bottom Line:
NDPS Act - Bail application - Section 27A of NDPS Act - No prima facie evidence to support charge under Section 27A NDPS Act, as allegations do not meet the direct threshold of "financing" or "harbouring" as defined under the Act - Confessional statements under Section 67 NDPS Act held inadmissible by Supreme Court.
Statutory provision(s):
Section 27A NDPS Act, Section 67 NDPS Act, Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, Section 2(viiib) NDPS Act
Mazeed Ali v. UT of J&K, (Jammu And Kashmir) : Law Finder Doc id # 2851483
