MAHMOOD KURDEYA Vs. NARCOTICS CONTROL BUREAU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition the petitioner seeks regular bail in Sessions Case No. 156/2019 under Sections 22/23/29 NDPS Act on a complaint filed by the respondent/ NCB.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is a 23 old, Syrian national staying in Delhi as refugee pursuant to the registration and verification by the UNHCR since 2015 and has been falsely implicated in case No. VIII/28/DZU/2018 of the respondent. Being a refugee there is no likelihood that the petitioner can flee this country. The petitioner is in custody since 27th September, 2018 and the trial is likely to take a lot of time. No recovery has been made from the petitioner and thus no case is made out against the petitioner. Even on the personal search and search of the house of the petitioner nothing incriminating was recovered.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the only evidence linking the petitioner to the contraband recovered is the statement recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act by the officer of the respondent which in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Toofan Singh Vs. State of Tamil Nadu (2021) 4 SCC 1 is inadmissible in evidence and cannot be used to implicate the petitioner. The statement made by the co-accused Arjun Elawadi stands retracted. The co-accused Arjun Elawadi who was the alleged manufacturer and supplier of the banned substance who ultimately, financially gained from the alleged transaction has already been granted regular bail by the Court and hence on parity the petitioner is also entitled to bail. Further the so-called voluntary statement recorded by the NCB under Section 67 of the NDPS Act cannot be voluntary for the reason the petitioner neither understands Hindi nor English and admittedly no translator was made available to the petitioner at the time of recording of the statement.