HARPREET SINGH BAHAD Vs. D.R.I.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order shall dispose of the bail application filed by the petitioner, who is in judicial custody since 20.8.2004 in a complaint case filed by the respondents under Section 21 of the NDPS Act pending before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi, on the allegations that a huge quantity of contraband i.e. 22.855 kg of heroin was seized from a Maruti Zen car bearing registration No. DL -9CJ -5397, which was parked outside the Hotel Sangam Palace, Meera Bagh, New Delhi on 18.08.2004. The said car was found to be in the possession of two persons viz. Ravinder Singh Mann and Roshan Lal, both co -accused of the petitioner. It is alleged that the recovered contraband were supplied by the present petitioner to the co -accused persons.

(2.) IT is submitted by the petitioner, that the evidence relied upon by the respondent against him is inadmissible as the said evidence comprises of the statement of co -accused persons recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, which cannot be used against him unless it is corroborated by other independent evidence. As far as his own statement is concerned, it is submitted that the same was not a voluntary statement but was taken under duress and in this regard he made an application before the ACMM concerned after he was produced before the ACMM along with medical report which was prepared by the Jail Doctor and which shows that he was tortured by the respondents. As regards the statement of Ravi Bhatia, who appeared as PW -4 before the trial court, it is submitted that the said witness has not supported the case of the prosecution. It is also submitted that even if his statement under Section 67 of the NDPS Act is taken into consideration, the same does not involve the petitioner with the crime. He only said that the vehicle in question was left at his premises for repairs. The vehicle does not belong to the petitioner.

(3.) THE petitioner has also submitted that in the absence of any corroborating evidence, the continued detention of the petitioner solely on the statement of co -accused and the statement of the petitioner recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, which is retracted and is not a voluntary statement, the petitioner cannot be convicted in this case and therefore, it is a case where the petitioner is entitled to be released on bail despite rigor of Section 37 of the NDPS Act. Reliance has been placed on the following judgments: