Back
BRIJ RAJ SINGH
Sujit Kumar – Appellant
Versus
Union Of India Thru. D. R. I. Lucknow – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Brij Raj Singh, J.
1. Heard Sri Annil Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Digvijay Nath Dubey, learned counsel for opposite party Union of India, DRI, Lucknow, and perused record.
2. This first application for bail under Section 439 CrPC is moved with prayer for bail to applicant in DRI Case No.08/2022 under Section 8 /20/25/27A/29 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS), PS Challaned by D.R.I., Gomti Nagar, district Lucknow.
3. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the alleged recovery of Ganja pertaining to 903.500 kg., is shown from the possession of co-accused Bapina Gouda and Ajit Kumar Naik but the same is shown neither to have been recovered from the possession of the applicant nor the applicant is career of the contraband substance.
4. As per prosecution case, two named accused persons Bapina Gouda and Ajit Kumar Naik were arrested at the place of occurrence on 30.5.2022 along with Truck No.OD-07-AC-0286 by the team of DRI Department, Lucknow at Sri Mahesh Prasad Degree College, National Highway, 24-B, Mohanlalganj, Lucknow-227305 (U.P.). The said truck was coming to Lucknow from Rae Bareli side and
Confessional statements to officers under the NDPS Act are inadmissible as evidence, and bail must be granted if there is insufficient evidence against the accused.
Confessional statements made to officers under the NDPS Act are barred by Section 25 of the Evidence Act, rendering them inadmissible for prosecution purposes, thus affecting the grounds for bail.
The court confirmed that under Section 37 NDPS Act, bail can only be granted if there are reasonable grounds for believing the accused is not guilty and unlikely to re-offend.
The judgment emphasizes the principles of innocence until proven guilty, the need for substantive evidence to establish guilt, and the limitations on the admissibility of disclosure statements withou....
A confessional statement made before an officer designated under Section 42 or Section 53 of the NDPS Act cannot be the sole basis for conviction without safeguards. Even in cases involving commercia....
Bail may be granted if the accused is named in a co-accused's disclosure statement without corroborative evidence, especially after substantial custody time, aligning with the right to a speedy trial....
Statements made by co-accused are inadmissible as evidence against another accused, necessitating substantial evidence for detention.
Bail should not be denied solely based on co-accused statements without sufficient evidence; the presumption of innocence persists until proven guilty, emphasizing that the general rule favors bail.
Bail under the NDPS Act requires substantial evidence indicating the accused is not guilty, prioritizing public safety and the integrity of judicial processes over personal liberty.
Possession under the NDPS Act requires substantive evidence directly linking the accused to the contraband, with inadmissibility of confessions made to officers under specific provisions of the Evide....
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
