The Bombay High Court has held that a self-incriminating statement recorded by a Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) officer cannot be made admissible merely by describing it as an “admission” or by pointing to other evidence said to corroborate it.
The bench of Justice Hiten S. Venegavkar found that independent material, including cash-remittance records, courier documents, witness statements and mobile-location data, had to be assessed together while considering the restrictions on bail under Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act).
Buy Now: 80+ Judgements Indirect Tax – September 2026 E-Magazine
The DRI investigation concerns the alleged illicit manufacture and interstate distribution of mephedrone. According to the prosecution, searches connected with another accused resulted in the recovery of a packet recorded as containing 2,960 grams of mephedrone from his residence. A drum containing 107 litres of liquid was subsequently recovered from the premises of Apex Medichem.
The applicant, Jitendra Maneklal Panchal, was accused of financing the activity and procuring and distributing the manufactured substance through consignments sent by courier from Aurangabad. He was arrested on March 12, 2025, and was in custody for approximately 19 months when the High Court considered his application.
The prosecution invoked Sections 22, 27-A, 28 and 29 of the NDPS Act. The original complaint was filed on February 15, 2024, followed by a supplementary complaint on May 9, 2025.
The applicant argued that the case against him rested principally on statements made by a co-accused under Section 67 of the NDPS Act. His counsel pointed to a change in the co-accused’s account: the co-accused had initially referred to another person as a supplier from Ahmedabad but subsequently named the applicant and alleged supplies in the opposite direction.
The defence also submitted that no contraband had been recovered from the applicant and that the alleged payments through Angadia firms had not been linked to the manufacture of the seized substance. It questioned the use of photographs for identification, the failure to verify the identity of the sender of the alleged consignments and the non-recovery of a mobile handset allegedly used for communication.
The applicant relied on negative results for some chemical samples, bail granted to other accused, his age and medical conditions, the completion of investigation and a police-clearance certificate obtained before proposed overseas travel.
The DRI opposed bail, relying on courier records, repeated cash remittances, identification by Angadia personnel and mobile-location data. It alleged that the applicant used the name “Raju bhai” to conceal his identity and mobile numbers registered to other persons.
The Court noted that the prosecution involved a commercial quantity and included an allegation under Section 27-A. The restrictions under Section 37 therefore applied.
Where the prosecution opposes bail, the Court must be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of the alleged offence and that he is not likely to commit an offence while on bail. Both conditions must be met.
Justice Venegavkar explained that this assessment is provisional and does not require a final finding of innocence. The Court referred to the Supreme Court’s decisions in Narcotics Control Bureau v. Mohit Aggarwal and Union of India v. Vigin K. Varghese on the examination of prosecution material and independent circumstances at the bail stage.
The High Court rejected the DRI’s argument that the applicant’s alleged self-incriminating statement could be considered merely because it was described as an admission.
The alleged statement about knowingly financing, receiving and distributing mephedrone was confessional in substance, the Court said. Referring to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu, it held that the voluntary nature of such a statement did not remove the bar against its use as a confession.
The Court further held that the bar could not be avoided by relying on signatures obtained while confronting the applicant with earlier statements and panchanamas. Corroboration by other evidence did not, by itself, make the confession admissible.
Permission to question a co-accused in judicial custody also did not convert a statement recorded by a DRI officer into a confession recorded by a Magistrate. The Court therefore kept aside the alleged confessional admissions of both accused and assessed the independently collected material, subject to proof at trial.
The Court rejected the defence submission that every factory recovery had tested negative. It noted that two findings in the Central Forensic Science Laboratory report dated January 18, 2024 recorded the presence of mephedrone. The inventory connected one of those samples with the liquid drum recovered from Apex Medichem.
While negative results for other exhibits narrowed the initial allegations, they did not eliminate the positive recovery from premises connected with the co-accused. The applicant’s connection with that activity, however, required separate examination.
The Court noted that two Angadia witnesses described repeated dealings with a person known as “Raju bhai”, who deposited cash for remittance to the co-accused at Aurangabad. They identified the applicant from a photograph shown by the investigating officer and referred to the sender’s contact number. Their accounts were accompanied by transaction details, including receipts and challans.
The court acknowledged that photograph identification was not conclusive. The absence of formal identity verification and another witness’s inability to identify the applicant were relevant limitations. However, the two witnesses described prior dealings rather than a single encounter with an unfamiliar person, and their evidence could not be discarded entirely at the bail stage.
The prosecution also relied on consignments booked by the co-accused for delivery to Ahmedabad in the name of “Raju bhai”. The complaint compared locations associated with numbers registered to the applicant with numbers appearing in the courier and Angadia records.
The Court noted the prosecution material recording the presence of one number registered to the applicant in the Ramol area on approximately 11 to 12 occasions when consignments arrived there. Telecom records and certification accompanied the material.
At the same time, the Court recognised the limits of that evidence. A mobile-tower location could not precisely establish that a parcel was collected or conclusively prove who used every number. Courier witnesses had not opened the parcels and could not independently establish their contents. Cash remittances alone also did not establish a narcotic purpose.
The Court nevertheless held that the circumstances, viewed together, prima facie indicated a continuing supply-and-payment arrangement between the applicant and the co-accused. It noted that the consignments were declared as food items and dispatched without commercial invoices.
The judge clarified that this provisional inference did not establish that every historical parcel contained mephedrone or that every remittance financed its manufacture.
The Court accepted the defence’s submission that every payment to a person dealing in narcotics does not automatically amount to financing illicit traffic under Section 27-A. The prosecution must establish a connection between the payment and illicit activity.
However, the Court observed that an alleged continuing conspiracy need not be established only by tracing a particular remittance to the manufacture of the precise packet seized from the co-accused’s residence. The purpose of the payments required evidence, and the aggregate amount also needed reconciliation; overlapping branch figures and amounts concerning other senders could not be added indiscriminately.
The Court made no final finding on the distinct ingredients of Section 27-A. It held that the independent circumstances also supported the allegation of participation in dealing involving a commercial quantity under Section 29 read with Section 22.
The applicant had relied on bail orders granted to other accused. The Court found that those orders turned on their individual roles and the evidence against them.
One order concerned a person whose position involved correspondence relating to anti-cancer activity and lack of knowledge of the co-accused’s activity. Another concerned an employee and the question of direct control over the company’s affairs. A third involved negative scientific findings concerning a separate recovery and an absence of other incriminating material.
The distinct financial, courier and telecom circumstances alleged against the present applicant meant that the reasons for granting bail to the others could not automatically be applied to him, the Court held.
The Court recorded that the applicant had spent approximately 19 months in custody and that the trial had not begun, with the matter pending for framing of charges. It said the delay was a matter of concern and that the right to a reasonably prompt trial could not be disregarded merely because Section 37 applied.
On the material before it, however, the Court held that the period of custody and anticipated duration of proceedings did not yet provide an independent ground for release. It left the assessment open to reconsideration if the trial did not advance with reasonable expedition.
The Court also considered the applicant’s age and medical complaints. It directed the prison superintendent to ensure timely specialist assessment, treatment and any referral advised by treating doctors.
Finding that it could not record reasonable grounds for believing that the applicant was not guilty of the alleged offences involving commercial quantity, the Court rejected bail. It did not make a speculative adverse finding on the second Section 37 condition. The applicant was given liberty to seek appropriate relief if there is a material change in circumstances.
Membership Required to Access Case Details & Order Copy
To view the complete Case Details and Download Order Copy, you must have an active membership. Please subscribe to continue.
