Case Title: State of West Bengal vs Rakesh Singh @ Rakesh Kumar Singh
The Supreme Court stated that in a situation where the applicability of Section 27A NDPS Act is substantially disputed, there has been no recovery from the accused, and the amount in question consists of an intermediate quantity, the strictures of Section 37 NDPS Act would not apply.
The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985's Sections 21(b)/29/27A were cited in this case, and the Calcutta High Court granted bail to the defendant.
The State argued in an appeal before the Apex Court that (a) the charge primarily relates to the offence under Section 27A of the NDPS Act, financing the trafficking of contraband, and (b) harbouring offenders, to which the requirements of Section 37 of the NDPS Act do apply; (c) the charge is supported by prima facie evidence, including witness statements as well as CCTV footage and call data records; and (d) on February 23, even though the accused attempted to flee, the High Court denied his writ petition; nevertheless, he failed to be present and was subsequently found at a remote location; (d) The prosecution has demonstrated that the defendant was involved in up to 53 criminal cases, and he was found guilty in at least two of them; (e) The prosecution has claimed that even in this particular case, the defendant had been separately charged with the offence related to Section 353 IPC and he had attempted to threaten the law enforcement agencies and personnel.
The accused-respondent argued that only a small amount of contraband was involved, that the Section 27A NDPS Act was not invoked because there was insufficient evidence linking the respondent to the offence, that the respondent had no prior record of dealing in drugs, that no contraband was found in his or her possession either physically or consciously, and that the State had completely changed the facts of the FIR case.
High Court correctly determined that the application of Section 27A of the NDPS Act in this matter is substantially disputed, the Apex Court bench composed of Justices Dinesh Maheshwari and Aniruddha Bose said after taking note of the case's circumstances and other sources.
"Suffice it to observe for the present purpose that in the given set of facts and circumstances, the High Court has rightly found that the applicability of Section 27A NDPS Act is seriously questionable in this case. That being the position; and there being otherwise no recovery from the respondent and the quantity in question being also intermediate quantity, the rigours of Section 37 NDPS Act do not apply to the present case."
The bench also agreed with the High Court's conclusion that the evidence did not support the idea that the accused would likely violate the NDPS Act while out on bail based on his prior behaviour. In ruling against the appeal, the court noted:
"Although the past history of the respondent and even his conduct in relation to the processes concerning the present case give rise to a few questions, the strong countervailing factor in the present case is the prima facie indication that he is being sought to be framed by concoctions and baseless stories. Another factor noticeable is that the respondent has not been involved in any NDPS Act case or any akin offence in the past. Interestingly, it is noticed from the material placed on record that nothing of any contraband article has been recovered from the respondent or from any place under his exclusive control. Does this factor further add to the doubt as to whether the respondent had at all been indulgent in narcotics or any contraband? That being the position, the view as taken by the High Court cannot be said to be an altogether unacceptable or impossible view of the matter. Moreover, it cannot be said that the respondent was consciously seeking to abscond on 23.02.2021 merely because he was found in the night at Purba Bardhaman and not at Kolkata. In any case, the aspect relating to a tendency to flee has been duly taken care of with the conditions as imposed by the High Court. The other submissions with reference to the decision in the case of Prasanta Kumar Sarkar (supra) hardly make out a case for interference particularly looking at the nature of the evidence sought to be adduced by the prosecution against the respondent. In this regard, we would hasten to observe that apart from the stringent conditions already imposed by the High Court, it is always open for the prosecution to seek the imposition of any further condition or even to seek cancellation of the bail granted to the respondent, in case of any fault on his part in due adherence to the conditions already imposed."