Case Note & Summary
The applicant, Kondiba Gunjal, Accused No.2 in a complaint filed by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) before the Special Court, sought bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The case involved the seizure of 191.60 kgs of heroin from a container imported under a bill of entry dated 1st August 2020. The container was detected by Customs officers, who informed the DRI. A raid was conducted on 7th August 2020 at Navkar Corporation, CFS Raigad, where the contraband was found concealed in gunny bags. Accused No.1, a customs house agent, was arrested and his statement under Section 67 of the NDPS Act implicated the applicant, who is his cousin and partner in a logistics firm. The applicant was summoned and his statement was recorded on 8th September 2020, wherein he admitted to clearing import consignments for Accused No.4. The applicant was arrested on 9th August 2021 and had been in custody for over three years. The trial had not progressed, with 54 witnesses yet to be examined. The applicant argued that his involvement was based solely on statements under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, which are inadmissible as confessions, and that his right to a speedy trial had been violated. The respondent opposed bail citing the commercial quantity of heroin and the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act. The court, relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Toofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu, held that statements under Section 67 of the NDPS Act cannot be used as confessional statements. The court also considered the long incarceration and lack of trial progress, noting that the right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution prevails. The court granted bail to the applicant on conditions, including furnishing a PR bond of Rs. 50,000 with one or two sureties, and directed the applicant to attend trial regularly and not tamper with evidence.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure Code - Bail - Section 439 CrPC - NDPS Act - Section 37 - Long Incarceration - Applicant/Accused No.2 was in custody for over 3 years without any progress in trial, with 54 witnesses yet to be examined - Court held that the rigors of Section 37 of NDPS Act are not an absolute bar to bail when there is prolonged incarceration and no likelihood of early conclusion of trial - Right to speedy trial under Article 21 of Constitution prevails (Paras 5-7, 20-22). B) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Confessional Statement - Section 67 - Admissibility - Statement recorded under Section 67 of NDPS Act cannot be used as a confessional statement in trial as the officer is a police officer within the meaning of Section 25 of the Evidence Act - Reliance placed on Toofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu (Paras 19, 21). C) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Bail - Section 37 - Commercial Quantity - 191.60 kgs of heroin seized - However, involvement of applicant was based solely on statements under Section 67 of NDPS Act and call records showing contact with co-accused - No direct evidence of possession or control over contraband - Court granted bail considering long incarceration and weak evidence (Paras 17-18, 22).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the applicant/accused is entitled to bail under Section 439 CrPC read with Section 37 of the NDPS Act, given the long period of incarceration and lack of progress in trial.
Final Decision
Bail granted to applicant/Accused No.2 on furnishing PR bond of Rs. 50,000 with one or two sureties; applicant to attend trial regularly, not tamper with evidence, and not leave India without court permission.
Law Points
- Bail under Section 439 CrPC
- Section 37 NDPS Act
- Right to Speedy Trial
- Confessional statement under Section 67 NDPS Act not admissible as evidence
- Long incarceration without trial progress
