Back
2006 Supreme(All) 1419
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Ravindra Singh J.
NIZAMUDDIN
Versus
UNION OF INDIA
Decided On : 09 May 2006
Crl. Misc. 2nd Bail Application No. 22657 of 2005
Ravindra Sharma, S.K.Singh,
The admissibility of statements under Section 67 of the NDPS Act as evidence and the gravity of drug trafficking offenses were central legal principles established in the judgment.
Headnote:
NDPS Act - Bail Application - Sections 8/21/27-A/29 - Summary: The court discussed the provisions of Sections 8/21/27-A/29 of the NDPS Act, emphasizing the admissibility of statements under Section 67 of the NDPS Act as evidence and the gravity of drug trafficking offenses. The court also highlighted the importance of adhering to legislative mandates and the impact of drug trafficking on society.
Fact of the Case:
The applicant filed a bail application in a case under Sections 8/21/27-A/29 of the NDPS Act, where 20 kg of heroin was recovered from co-accused. The applicant denied involvement and alleged coercion in obtaining confessional statements.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the statements of co-accused and the applicant under Section 67 of the NDPS Act indicated the applicant's involvement in the offense. The court also noted the admissibility of such statements as evidence and rejected the applicant's claim of coercion.
Issues: The issues involved coercion in obtaining confessional statements, admissibility of statements under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, and the gravity of drug trafficking offenses.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the admissibility of statements under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, the lack of merit in the coercion claim, and the gravity of drug trafficking offenses in denying bail to the applicant.
Final Decision: The bail application was rejected, and the applicant's plea for bail was refused.
This is the 2nd bail application filed by the applicant Nizamuddin with a prayer that he may be released on bail in case crime No. 3 of 2004 under Sections 8/21/27-A/29 NDPS Act, P. S. Narcotics Control Bureau, Varanasi.
2. The Criminal Misc. 1st Bail Application No. 21795 of 2004 has been disposed of on 14-11-2005 by this Court as not pressed.
3. The prosecution story, in brief, is that in the present case the F. I. R. has been lodged by Sri Sanjeev Kumar Singh. The alleged arrest and recovery is said to have been made by the officers of Narcotics Control Bureau (in short ncb), Varanasi on 13-4-2004 at about 11. 30 p. m. According to recovery memo the officials of the NCB received information on 13-4-2004 in respect of a transportation of heroin in heavy quantity for the sale purpose, on that information, a team of NCB staff came at Allahabad. At about 1. 30 p. m. a Gama vehicle bearing its registration No. RJ-35-T-0016 was intercepted, after its search, a recovery of 20 kg heroin was made and the accused Kudratullah @ Firoz and Bhairo Lal were arrested, they confessed before the arrested officer that the aforesaid heroin was to be received by the applicant who was present in a Tata Sumo Vehicle, but he managed to escape, after the said discloser.
4. The NCB staff of Varanasi were informed and requested to arrest the applicant on that information the team of the NCB staff, Varanasi arrested the applicant and co-accused Tarak Nath Ghosh and seized the Tata Sumo vehicle.
5. Heard Sri Ravindra Sharma learned Counsel for the applicant and Sri Sanjay Kumar Singh learned Counsel for NCB.
6. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the applicant:
(i) That no heroin or any other contraband was recovered from the possession of the applicant. According to the prosecution version itself 20 kg heroin was recovered from the possession of co- accused Kudratullah alias Firoz and Bhairo Lal.
(ii) That the name of the applicant has been disclosed by co-accused Kudratullah alias Firoz by alleging that the applicant had to take the delivery of the aforesaid heroin who was in a Tata Sumo vehicle. The applicant was arrested, but nothing incriminating was recovered from his possession or from his seized vehicle. The only evidence against the applicant is, the confessional statement of co-accused Kudratullah alias Firoz and the statement of the applicant, which was taken in writing by the arresting officer, but the said confessional statement has not been voluntarily made. It has been extorted under threat and coercion, therefore, no reliance can be placed on such statement. The applicant was arrested he was badly beaten and he was given the electric shocks, in order to extort confession. He was medically examined in Varanasi Jail on 16-4-2004. Five injuries were found on his person, which were caused by hard and blunt object. All the injuries were simple in nature and duration was about 1 to 3 days.
(iii) That there is no independent witness to support the prosecution story. All the witnesses of arrest are officials of NCB. They are interested in partisan of the witnesses. No reliance can be place on these witnesses.
(iv) That the applicant is having no criminal antecedent. There is absolutely no likelihood of his involvement in such type of offence if he is released on bail.
(v) That there is no compliance of mandatory provision of NDPS Act.
7. It is opposed by Sri Sanjai Kumar Singh the learned Counsel for the NCB by submitting:
(i) That the complaint has been filed under Sections 8/21/27-A and 29 NDPS Act in respect of the incident which had occurred on 14-4-2004 in which 20 kg heroin was recovered from the possession co- accused Kudratullah alias Firoz and Bhairo Lal.
(ii) The statement of co-accused Kudratullah alias Firoz, Bhairolal, Ramesh Sharma, Suresh Singh and Baliram Misra were voluntarily recorded on 14-4-2004 under Section 67 of the NDPS Act. According to their statement the applicant is actually involved in the com
