Back
JITENDRA KUMAR
Rajesh Kumar Singh – Appellant
Versus
State of Bihar – Respondent
ORDER
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks bail, apprehending his arrest, in connection with Banmankhi P.S. Case No. 456 of 2024, dated 16.12.2024, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 8(c), 20(b)(ii)(A) and 25 of the NDPS Act.
3. As per allegation, 970 gm Ganja was recovered from the possession of co-accused viz., Md. Majhar and Md. Rustam and in their confessional statements, it has transpired that they had purchased this contraband from the petitioner.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case on account of inadmissible material which can not be converted into evidence during the trial. He further submits that nothing has been recovered from the possession of the petitioner. He further submits that the whole case against the petitioner is based on the confessional statement of the coaccused as recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act which is not legally admissible and cannot be converted into evidence during the trial of the petitioner. As such, the whole prosecution case against the petitioner is persecution and not prosecuti
(1) Confessional statement of accused as recorded under Section 67 of NDPS Act is not admissible – Anticipatory bail granted.(2) Confession – Inadmissible confession cannot be proved during trial.
Confessional statements recorded under Section 67 of the N.D.P.S. Act are inadmissible as evidence, necessitating admissible evidence for trial.
Admission of confessions under duress is inadmissible in court, necessitating evidence to establish a prima facie case.
A confessional statement made by a co-accused under section 67 of the NDPS Act cannot be the sole basis for denying bail to a person from whose conscious possession there was no recovery.
Point of Law : In the absence of there being any other material available with the prosecution connecting the petitioner with the commission of offence alleged against him, except the statement of th....
A discharge application must be allowed if the prosecution's evidence, particularly confessions of co-accused, is inadmissible and no other corroborative evidence is present.
Point of Law : . It is needless to say that any observations, particularly observation with regard to admissibility of confessional statement before trial shall not influence the trial judge so as to....
Confessions of co-accused are inadmissible against another accused without corroborative evidence, leading to quashing of proceedings due to lack of substantive evidence.
Confessional statements made to officers under the NDPS Act are inadmissible, and mere dock identification is insufficient for conviction.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
