Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
JITENDRA KUMAR
Aslam @ Md. Aslam Ali @ Aslam Ali, Son Of Late Khairati Mian – Appellant
Versus
State of Bihar – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background of the criminal case against petitioner (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. arguments for dismissal of charges based on lack of evidence (Para 6 , 8) |
| 3. legal standards for evaluating charge framing (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 14) |
| 4. principles regarding admissibility of co-accused confessions (Para 15 , 16) |
| 5. conclusion on admissibility leading to discharge of petitioner (Para 20 , 21) |
JUDGMENT :
Jitendra Kumar, J.
The present petition has been preferred by the petitioner against the impugned order dated 19.01.2019 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Bettiah, West Champaran in Trial No. 46 of 2017, whereby learned Sessions Court/Special Court, N.D.P.S. has dismissed the application of the petitioner for discharge filed under Section 227 of the Cr.PC.
2. The prosecution case, as per the written report of the informant/Bimlendu Kumar, who is Police Sub-Inspector, is that he was posted in Town Police Station, Bettiah. On 26.12.2016, in the morning, he got information that one Md. Saheb is selling smack at Naurangabag. Information was given to his senior officer and one team was constituted. The raiding team reached Naurangabag, near the house as informed by the informer, surrou
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.
Confessional statements recorded under Section 67 of the N.D.P.S. Act are inadmissible as evidence, necessitating admissible evidence for trial.
Confessions of co-accused before police are inadmissible as evidence, necessitating physical evidence for charges under narcotics laws.
Admission of confessions under duress is inadmissible in court, necessitating evidence to establish a prima facie case.
Confessional Statement in front of police officer - Admissibility of - Officers who are invested with powers under S. 53 of NDPS Act are “police officers” within meaning of S. 25 of Evidence Act, as ....
Confessional statements made to officers under the NDPS Act are inadmissible, and mere dock identification is insufficient for conviction.
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 of co-accused, without corroboration, cannot sustain criminal charges against another accused under the NDPS Act.
Charges under the NDPS Act cannot be framed based solely on co-accused statements and CDR evidence without establishing grave suspicion against the accused.
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
