Confessional statements recorded under Section 67 of the N.D.P.S. Act are inadmissible as evidence, necessitating admissible evidence for trial.

ORDER :

Jitendra Kumar, J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Special Case No. 173 of 2023/53A of 2021 arising out of NCB Crime No. 12 of 2021 dated 04.06.2021, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 8(c) read with Sections 21(c), 25 and 29 of N.D.P.S. Act, 1985.

3. As per allegation, 710 grams brown coloured substance appearing to be Morphine was recovered from the house of co-accused Sunni Kumar where, besides Sunni Kumar, Munna Ravidas and Raju Prasad were also present and all of them were arrested and as per confessional statements of co-accused Sunni Kumar, Munna Ravidas and Raju Prasad, the names of co-accused Mithlesh Kumar and Rahul Samrat transpired and in the confessional statement of Mithlesh Kumar as recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, the name of the present petitioner transpired as Supplier of the contraband to the co-accused. It has also come in the confessional Statement of co-accused Rahul Kumar @ Samrat that he used to deposit money in the account of the petitioner. However, there is no allegation of recovery of any contraband from the possession of 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. Even the claim of the prosecution that co-accused Rahul Kumar @ Rahul Samrat used to deposit money in the account of the petitioner is based on confessional statement of the co-accused Rahul Kumar @ Rahul Samrat which has no evidentiary value.

5. He further submits that the whole case against the petitioner is based on the confessional statement of the co- accused 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. Hence, his liberty is being curtailed without any legal basis by detaining the petitioner for about two years since 07.02.2023.

6. He also submits that aforesaid co-accused Rahul Kumar @ Rahul Samrat has been already granted regular bail by Hon’ble Apex Court vide order dated 11.09.2023 passed in Cr. Appeal No. 2760 of 2023 whereas co-accused Rohit Kumar has been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 03.11.2023 passed in Cr. Misc. No.72814 of 2023 and the co-accused Mithilesh Kumar has been also enlarged on bail vide order dated 26.04.2024 passed by a coordinate Bench of this Court in Cr. Misc. No. 71756 of 2023.

7. He also submits that though he has three criminal antecedents, all the previous criminal cases are also based on inadmissible material.

8. It is also stated in paragraph no. 2 of the bail petition that the petitioner has earlier moved this Court for regular bail and the same was rejected vide order dated 10.05.2024 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 15044 of 2024.

9. However, learned counsel for the Central Government, Mr. Ram Anurag Singh, vehemently opposes the prayer of the petitioner for bail submitting that the alleged offence is serious in nature and this name has transpired in the confessional statement of the co-accused as recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act.

10. He further submits that the petitioner is the king-pin of the whole illegal trade of contraband and as per the prosecution case emerging from the confessional statement of the co-accused, there was a talk between the petitioner and the co-accused, Sunni Kumar and Mithlesh Kumar and there is also deposit of money by Rahul Kumar @ Rahul Samrat in the account of the petitioner.

11. He also refers to Section 30 of the Evidence Act to submit that confessional statement of co-accused is relevant and admissib