LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the High Court was correct in granting bail to an accused under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act), particularly when the accused was charged under Section 27A of the NDPS Act.
CASE TYPE: Criminal Law, NDPS Act
Case Name: State of West Bengal vs. Rakesh Singh @ Rakesh Kumar Singh
Judgment Date: 11 July 2022
Date of the Judgment: 11 July 2022
Citation: 2022 INSC 618
Judges: Dinesh Maheshwari, J., Aniruddha Bose, J.
Can an accused, charged with serious offences under the NDPS Act, be granted bail when the prosecution’s case appears to have significant inconsistencies? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case where the High Court had granted bail to an accused charged under Section 27A of the NDPS Act. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision, emphasizing that the prosecution’s narrative had serious contradictions. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice Dinesh Maheshwari and Justice Aniruddha Bose.
Case Background
The case began with the registration of FIR No. 65 of 2021 on 19.02.2021 at New Alipore Police Station, Kolkata. Initially, the FIR was filed under Sections 21(b) and 29 of the NDPS Act after 76 grams of cocaine were recovered from a car occupied by Somnath Chattopadhyay, Prabir Kumar De, and Pamela Goswami. Subsequently, on 23.02.2021, Rakesh Singh was arrested and accused of offences under Section 27A of the NDPS Act, which pertains to financing illicit trafficking and harbouring offenders. The prosecution alleged that Rakesh Singh had orchestrated the planting of the cocaine in the vehicle to falsely implicate Prabir Kumar De and Pamela Goswami due to a personal grudge.
The prosecution’s case against Rakesh Singh was that he had financed the procurement of cocaine, which was then planted in the car of Prabir Kumar De and Pamela Goswami. The prosecution claimed that Rakesh Singh paid Rs. 8,50,000 to Amrita Singh @ Sweety, who then procured the cocaine from Daim Akhtar and Farhan Ahmed. Amrit Raj Singh, another co-accused, allegedly lured Prabir Kumar De and Pamela Goswami to a meeting in New Alipore and then concealed the cocaine in their car. After planting the cocaine, Amrit Raj Singh allegedly fled to Rakesh Singh’s residence.
The police detained the vehicle on 19.02.2021 and seized 76 grams of cocaine. The initial complaint stated that the occupants of the car pointed out the locations where the cocaine was concealed. Rakesh Singh was arrested on 23.02.2021, after initially evading a notice to appear for questioning and allegedly obstructing police from entering his residence.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 19.02.2021 | FIR No. 65/2021 registered at New Alipore Police Station, Kolkata, after recovery of 76 grams of cocaine from a car. |
| 19.02.2021 | Somnath Sarkar, SI, submits a written complaint to the Officer In-Charge of New Alipore Police Station, Kolkata. |
| 23.02.2021 | Rakesh Singh arrested for offences under Section 27A of the NDPS Act. |
| 23.02.2021 | Rakesh Singh fails to appear before the Investigating Officer after being served a notice. |
| 23.02.2021 | Rakesh Singh’s petition challenging the notice is dismissed by the High Court. |
| 23.02.2021 | Rakesh Singh is arrested at Galsi PS, Purba Bardhaman. |
| 27.02.2021 | Statement of Md. Nasir Khan recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC). |
| 28.02.2021 | Statement of Nishat Alam @ Ruman Khan recorded under Section 161 CrPC. |
| 30.03.2021 | Statements of Md. Nasir Khan and Nishat Alam @ Ruman Khan recorded under Section 164 CrPC. |
| 03.05.2021 | Charge-sheet submitted, naming Rakesh Singh and others as accused. |
| 12.03.2021 | Rakesh Singh’s bail application rejected by the Special Court under the NDPS Act. |
| 24.09.2021 | Supreme Court disposes of Rakesh Singh’s SLP(Crl.) No. 7282 of 2021, directing the High Court to consider his bail application expeditiously. |
| 07.10.2021 | High Court hears detailed arguments on the bail application. |
| 24.11.2021 | Calcutta High Court grants bail to Rakesh Singh. |
| 18.05.2022 | Supreme Court hears arguments in the appeal against the High Court’s bail order. |
| 11.07.2022 | Supreme Court dismisses the appeal and upholds the bail granted to Rakesh Singh. |
Course of Proceedings
Rakesh Singh’s bail application was initially rejected by the Special Court under the NDPS Act on 12.03.2021. He then approached the High Court, which granted him bail on 24.11.2021. The State of West Bengal challenged this order in the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court had earlier directed the High Court to expedite the bail hearing through SLP(Crl.) No. 7282 of 2021, after the bail application had been pending for a long time.
Legal Framework
The core legal provisions in this case are sections of the NDPS Act, 1985:
- Section 21(b) of the NDPS Act: Deals with punishment for contravention in relation to psychotropic substances.
- Section 27A of the NDPS Act: Deals with punishment for financing illicit traffic and harbouring offenders. It states, “Whoever indulges in financing, directly or indirectly, any of the activities specified in sub-clauses (i) to (v) of clause (a) of section 2 or harbours any person engaged in any of the aforementioned activities, shall be punishable with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than ten years but which may extend to twenty years and shall also be liable to fine which shall not be less than one lakh rupees but which may extend to two lakh rupees.”
- Section 29 of the NDPS Act: Deals with punishment for abetment and criminal conspiracy.
- Section 37 of the NDPS Act: Imposes restrictions on the grant of bail for offences under the Act.
The case also references Section 161 and 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), which deal with recording of statements by police and magistrates, respectively.
Arguments
The arguments presented by both sides are summarized below:
| Main Submission | Sub-Submissions | Party |
|---|---|---|
| Bail should not be granted due to the severity of the charges and evidence against the accused. | Rakesh Singh financed the procurement of cocaine worth Rs. 8.5 lakhs. | Appellant (State of West Bengal) |
| He conspired to plant the cocaine in the car of Prabir Kumar De and Pamela Goswami. | Appellant (State of West Bengal) | |
| He harboured the offender, Amrit Raj Singh. | Appellant (State of West Bengal) | |
| Statements of witnesses, CCTV footage, and call data records support the charges. | Appellant (State of West Bengal) | |
| Rakesh Singh has a history of criminal activity, including threatening public servants, and has shown a tendency to abscond. | Appellant (State of West Bengal) | |
| Bail should be granted as the prosecution’s case is weak and there are doubts about the accused’s involvement. | There was no recovery of contraband from Rakesh Singh’s possession. | Respondent (Rakesh Singh) |
| The quantity of cocaine recovered was intermediate, not commercial, thus Section 37 of the NDPS Act does not apply. | Respondent (Rakesh Singh) | |
| The prosecution’s case has changed significantly from the initial FIR to the charge-sheet, raising doubts about its veracity. | Respondent (Rakesh Singh) | |
| There is no prima facie evidence to support the charge of financing illicit trafficking or harbouring offenders under Section 27A of the NDPS Act. | Respondent (Rakesh Singh) | |
| Statements of key witnesses are questionable, and the accused was summoned without sufficient evidence. | Respondent (Rakesh Singh) | |
| Rakesh Singh is a political leader and has been framed in a politically motivated case. | Respondent (Rakesh Singh) |
The State argued that Rakesh Singh was the kingpin of a drug racket, financing the illicit trafficking of cocaine and harbouring offenders. They contended that the restrictions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act applied, and the High Court erred in granting bail. They also emphasized Rakesh Singh’s criminal history and his attempts to evade arrest. The State relied on the statements of witnesses, call data records, and CCTV footage to support their case.
Rakesh Singh argued that he was falsely implicated. He pointed out that no contraband was recovered from his possession, and the quantity of cocaine recovered was intermediate. He also highlighted that the prosecution’s story had changed from the initial FIR to the charge-sheet. He argued that a single transaction of purchasing contraband does not amount to “financing illicit traffic” under Section 27A of the NDPS Act. He also argued that he had not tried to abscond and was aware of his location.
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section, but the core issue was whether the High Court was correct in granting bail to Rakesh Singh, particularly considering the charges under Section 27A of the NDPS Act and the restrictions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues
| Issue | Court’s Decision | Reason |
|---|---|---|
| Whether the restrictions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act apply in this case? | No. | The court found that the prosecution’s case was doubtful, and there was no recovery of contraband from the accused. The quantity of cocaine was intermediate, not commercial. |
| Whether the accused was involved in financing illicit traffic and harbouring offenders under Section 27A of the NDPS Act? | Doubtful. | The court found the prosecution’s story of planting contraband to be doubtful. The statements of witnesses were also questionable. |
| Whether the accused’s past criminal history and conduct should prevent him from getting bail? | Not in this case. | Despite the accused’s criminal history, the court found the prosecution’s case to be weak and based on concocted stories. The accused was not previously involved in NDPS cases. |
Authorities
The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:
| Authority | Court | How it was considered |
|---|---|---|
| Union of India through Narcotics Control Bureau, Lucknow v. Md. Nawaz Khan: 2021 SCC OnLine SC 782 | Supreme Court of India | Referred to on the point that mere absence of possession of contraband does not absolve scrutiny under Section 37 NDPS Act. |
| State of Kerala & Ors. v. Rajesh & Ors: (2020) 12 SCC 122 | Supreme Court of India | Referred to regarding the operation of the rigours of Section 37 NDPS Act. |
| Rhea Chakraborty v. Union of India & Anr.: 2020 SCC OnLine Bom 990 | Bombay High Court | Referred to on the interpretation of “financing illicit traffic,” stating that it connotes continuous flow and not a solitary transaction. |
| State of U.P. v. Amarmani Tripathi: (2005) 8 SCC 21 | Supreme Court of India | Referred to by the appellant on the point that the respondent has shown the tendency to abscond or flee. |
| Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashish Chaterjee & Anr. : (2010) 14 SCC 496 | Supreme Court of India | Referred to by the appellant on the point that the respondent enjoys considerable political clout and may influence the witnesses and tamper with the evidence. |
| State of West Bengal v. Rakesh Kumar Singh: 2015 SCC OnLine Cal 1338 | High Court of Judicature at Calcutta | Referred to by the appellant on the point that even in custody, the respondent had threatened the police officers. |
Judgment
The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision to grant bail to Rakesh Singh. The court found that the prosecution’s case was doubtful, primarily due to the inconsistencies between the initial FIR and the subsequent charge-sheet.
| Submission by Parties | How the Court Treated the Submission |
|---|---|
| The State argued that Rakesh Singh financed the procurement and planting of cocaine and harboured the offender, thus attracting Section 27A of the NDPS Act. | The court found the prosecution’s story of planting the contraband to be doubtful, and the statements of the witnesses to be questionable. The court stated that the initial complaint stated that the occupants of the car pointed out the location of the contraband in the car, which contradicts the theory of the accused planting the contraband and the occupants being unaware of it. |
| The State argued that the accused’s past criminal history and conduct should prevent him from getting bail. | The court acknowledged the criminal history but noted that the respondent was not involved in any NDPS Act case previously. The court also stated that the High Court had imposed stringent conditions, which would prevent the accused from fleeing. |
| The Respondent argued that there was no recovery of contraband from his possession and that the quantity recovered was intermediate. | The court agreed with the respondent and held that the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act do not apply to the present case. |
| The Respondent argued that the prosecution’s case had changed from the FIR to the charge sheet. | The court agreed with the respondent and stated that the change in the prosecution’s case gave rise to serious doubts about the veracity of the prosecution’s case. |
| The Respondent argued that there was no prima facie evidence to support the charge under Section 27A of the NDPS Act. | The court agreed with the respondent and held that the applicability of Section 27A NDPS Act was seriously questionable. |
The following authorities were viewed by the Court:
- Union of India through Narcotics Control Bureau, Lucknow v. Md. Nawaz Khan [2021 SCC OnLine SC 782]* was referred to by the appellant, but the court stated that when the case against the respondent is disbelieved due to material available on record, the questions concerning possession of contraband, its quantity, or financing are rendered redundant.
- Rhea Chakraborty v. Union of India & Anr. [2020 SCC OnLine Bom 990]* was referred to by the respondent, and the court stated that when the case against the respondent of getting the contraband planted in the vehicle in question is prima facie disbelieved because of material available on record, the questions concerning possession of contraband, its quantity, or financing are all rendered redundant.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision was influenced by several key factors. The most significant was the inconsistency between the initial complaint and the subsequent charge-sheet. The initial complaint stated that the occupants of the car pointed out the location of the contraband, which contradicted the prosecution’s later theory that the contraband was planted without their knowledge. This contradiction raised serious doubts about the veracity of the prosecution’s case against Rakesh Singh. The court also noted that the respondent had no prior history of NDPS Act violations, and no contraband was recovered from his possession.
| Sentiment Analysis | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Inconsistency in Prosecution Story | 40% |
| Lack of Recovery from the Accused | 30% |
| No Prior NDPS Act Violations | 20% |
| Intermediate Quantity of Contraband | 10% |
| Ratio | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 60% |
| Law | 40% |
The court’s reasoning process can be summarized as follows:
The court considered the arguments that Rakesh Singh had a criminal history and had tried to evade arrest. However, the court concluded that these factors were not sufficient to deny bail, given the serious doubts about the prosecution’s case. The court also noted that the High Court had imposed stringent conditions on the bail, which would mitigate the risk of the accused absconding or tampering with evidence.
The court quoted from the judgment:
“…the very edifice of the prosecution case against the respondent crumbles down and falls flat. Putting it differently, the story of planting of contraband in the vehicle in question by some third person like Amrit Raj Singh could only be disbelieved, for being squarely contrary to the initial case of the prosecution, as stated in the written complaint.”
“In this view of the matter, the other part of submissions and reference to the cases of Md. Nawaz Khan and Rhea Chakraborty (supra) do not require much elaboration. As aforesaid, when the case against the respondent of getting the contraband planted in the vehicle in question is prima facie disbelieved because of material available on record, the questions concerning possession of contraband, its quantity or financing are all rendered redundant.”
“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 but, 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.”
The court did not find any minority opinion in the judgment.
The court’s decision was based on a careful analysis of the facts and circumstances of the case, as well as the relevant legal provisions. The court concluded that the High Court’s decision to grant bail was a possible view of the matter, given the doubts about the prosecution’s case.
Key Takeaways
- Inconsistencies in the prosecution’s case can be a significant factor in granting bail, even in cases involving serious charges under the NDPS Act.
- The absence of recovery of contraband from the accused’s possession, coupled with an intermediate quantity of contraband, can weaken the case for applying the restrictions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act.
- A change in the prosecution’s story from the initial FIR to the charge-sheet can raise doubts about the veracity of the prosecution’s case.
- Past criminal history alone is not sufficient to deny bail if the prosecution’s case is weak and there is no prior history of NDPS violations.
Directions
The Supreme Court did not give any specific directions, but it did state that the prosecution was at liberty to seek the imposition of further conditions or even cancellation of bail if the respondent failed to adhere to the conditions imposed by the High Court.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of this case is that when the prosecution’s case is based on a contradictory narrative and the evidence against the accused is weak, bail can be granted even in cases involving serious charges under the NDPS Act. The case emphasizes that the courts must look at the facts and circumstances of each case and not apply the restrictions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act blindly. This case does not change the previous position of law, but emphasizes the need for a thorough examination of the evidence before denying bail.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the High Court’s decision to grant bail to Rakesh Singh. The court emphasized the inconsistencies in the prosecution’s case and the lack of evidence directly linking Rakesh Singh to the alleged drug trafficking. The court’s decision highlights the importance of a fair trial and the need to critically examine the prosecution’s narrative before denying bail, even in serious cases under the NDPS Act.