STATE BY (NCB) BENGALURU versus PALLULABID AHMAD ARIMUTTA & ANR.

STATE BY (NCB) BENGALURU versus PALLULABID AHMAD ARIMUTTA & ANR.

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's orders releasing several respondents on bail because arrests and allegations were largely founded on statements under Section 67 (which are inadmissible in trial) and there was no substantial material at arrest against them; however, bail of Mohammed Afzal (A-2) was cancelled because he was found in conscious possession of commercial quantity of psychotropic substances, invoking Section 37 of the NDPS Act and precluding parity with co-accused.

Parties
Petitioner: STATE BY (NCB) BENGALURU; Respondent: PALLULABID AHMAD ARIMUTTA & ANR.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
10 January 2022
Procedural Posture
Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (criminal) / Disposal by Supreme Court (judgment on Slps Seeking Cancellation of Bail)
Outcome
Supreme Court dismissed most SLPs seeking cancellation of bail and upheld the High Court orders releasing respondents on bail, but allowed the SLP in respect of Mohammed Afzal (A-2) and cancelled his bail.
Legal Topics
Bail, Cancellation of Bail, Section 37 NDPS, Section 67 NDPS, Admissibility of Confessional Statements
Criminal Law Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 Bail Cancellation of Bail Section 37 NDPS Section 67 NDPS Admissibility of Confessional Statements

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 9
Sign in to unlock

Parties

STATE BY (NCB) BENGALURU

Petitioner

PALLULABID AHMAD ARIMUTTA & ANR.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (criminal) / Disposal by Supreme Court (judgment on Slps Seeking Cancellation of Bail)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether confessional/voluntary statements recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act are admissible and can justify cancellation of bail
  2. 2 Whether the non-obstante and pre-conditions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act are attracted and justify denial or cancellation of bail where accused is in conscious possession of commercial quantity
  3. 3 Whether an accused can claim parity with co-accused released on bail when found in conscious possession of commercial quantity

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's orders releasing several respondents on bail because arrests and allegations were largely founded on statements under Section 67 (which are inadmissible in trial) and there was no substantial material at arrest against them; however, bail of Mohammed Afzal (A-2) was cancelled because he was found in conscious possession of commercial quantity of psychotropic substances, invoking Section 37 of the NDPS Act and precluding parity with co-accused.

Court Disposition

Supreme Court dismissed most SLPs seeking cancellation of bail and upheld the High Court orders releasing respondents on bail, but allowed the SLP in respect of Mohammed Afzal (A-2) and cancelled his bail.

Orders

  • Impugned orders dated 16.09.2019, 14.01.2020, 16.01.2020, 19.12.2019 and 20.01.2020 releasing various respondents on bail are upheld and SLPs seeking cancellation of those bails are dismissed.
  • Bail granted to Mohammed Afzal (A-2) (order dated 08.01.2020) is cancelled and he is directed to surrender before the Sessions Court/Special Judge (NDPS) within two weeks to be taken into custody.