In a significant ruling concerning the stringent Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, a Special NDPS Court in Bengaluru has granted bail to 24-year-old Rafeeq Ulla Islam, a resident of Assam, who was allegedly involved in an inter-state drug trafficking racket. The decision, delivered by Sri. G. Raghavendra, Special Judge (NDPS), highlights the judicial scrutiny required when an accused is implicated solely based on co-accused statements without direct recovery.
The Case Background: Arrest at Bengaluru City Railway Station
The prosecution’s case dates back to February 1, 2024, when a special NDPS squad of the Cantonment Railway Police was monitoring Train No. 18643, the Prashanthi Express. Upon arrival at Platform No. 4 of the Bengaluru City Railway Station, police spotted a suspicious individual sitting on a stone bench with three bags.
The individual, identified as Accused No. 1, allegedly confessed to carrying ganja purchased from tribes in the Budamba Village of Odisha. A subsequent search revealed 20.495 kilograms of ganja, a quantity classified under the law as “commercial.”
Implication of Rafeeq Ulla Islam (Accused No. 3)
During the investigation, Accused No. 1 provided a voluntary statement claiming that two others, including the petitioner Rafeeq Ulla Islam, had traveled with him from Bhubaneshwar. He alleged that when the police detained him, the other two had gone to buy water bottles and fled the scene after witnessing his arrest. Rafeeq was subsequently produced before the Investigating Officer on February 5, 2024.
Legal Hurdles: The Rigors of Section 37
The primary challenge for the defense was Section 37 of the NDPS Act, which applies to cases involving commercial quantities. Unlike regular criminal cases where “bail is the rule and jail is the exception,” Section 37 creates a “twin-test” for bail:
- The Public Prosecutor must be given an opportunity to oppose the application.
- The court must be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing the accused is not guilty and is not likely to commit any offense while on bail.
The prosecution argued that Rafeeq, hailing from Assam, posed a significant flight risk and might tamper with witnesses or rejoin the drug trade if released.
The Court’s Reasoning: Lack of Direct Evidence
In his detailed order, Judge G. Raghavendra noted a critical gap in the prosecution’s evidence against the petitioner. While the quantity of ganja seized was indeed commercial (exceeding the 20kg threshold), the court observed that:
- No recovery was made from Rafeeq Ulla Islam directly.
- The only material linking him to the 20.495kg of ganja was the confessional statement of the co-accused (Accused No. 1) and his own voluntary statement given while in custody.
- Under Indian law, a confession made to a police officer is generally inadmissible as substantive evidence.
The court cited the Supreme Court decision in Union of India vs. Shiva Shanker Kesari, emphasizing that “reasonable grounds” mean something more than prima facie grounds—they connote substantial probable causes for believing the accused is not guilty.
Since nothing was recovered from the petitioner and the link to the seized contraband relied solely on statements, the court found the petitioner satisfied the legal requirements for release. Furthermore, a co-accused (Accused No. 2) had already been granted bail by the same court a week prior.
Bail Conditions and Final Order
While allowing the bail application under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C., the court imposed several strict conditions to ensure the petitioner’s presence during trial:
- Bond: Execution of a personal bond for Rs. 1,00,000/- with one surety of a like sum.
- No Inducement: The petitioner must not threaten or promise anything to any person acquainted with the case facts.
- Cooperation: He must cooperate with the Investigation Officer as and when required.
- Regular Attendance: He must appear before the court on every hearing date without fail.
- Clean Record: He shall not commit any similar offenses while out on bail.
The court warned that any breach of these conditions would lead to the immediate cancellation of the bail. This ruling underscores the protective shield of the judiciary against incarceration based solely on custodial statements, even in cases involving high-gravity narcotics charges.