Admission of confessions under duress is inadmissible in court, necessitating evidence to establish a prima facie case.

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA KUMAR ORAL ORDER

2 15-01-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with Sadar P.S. Case No.766 of 2024 (Suppl. Spepcial) (N.D.P.S. Act) Case No. 63 of 2025, CIS No. 237 of 2025, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 80 ( C ), 21 (C ), 25 and

29 of the N.D.P.S. Act.

3. As per allegation, 356 grams of smack/brown sugar has been recovered from the co-accused, Aman Kumar, @ Maklu, which was kept in a lunch box. As per the confessional statement of the co-accused, Aman Kumar, he was bringing the contraband on the instruction of the Petitioner and the co- accused Chotu Ram. It was also confessed that the Petitioner and her husband were also involved in the illegal trade of the contraband.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case. He also submits that the name of the Petitioner has transpired in the alleged offence only in the confessional statement of the co-accused, Aman Kumar @ Maklu to the police, which has no evidentiary value, nor can it be converted into legal evidence during trial and there is no recovery, whatsoever, of any contraband from the possession of the Petitioner. As such, there is no material on record to curtail the liberty of the Petitioner. He also refers to and relies upon the order dated. 17.09.2025, in Firoz Alam Vs. State of Bihar wherein this Court has held as follows:

“10. Here it would be pertinent to refer to Tofan Singh Vs. State of T.N. 2021 (4) SCC 1 wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court has clearly held that the confessional statement of the accused as recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act is not admissible. Here it has been explained that the powers conferred on the empowered officers under Section 41 and 42 of the NDPS Act 1985 read with Section 67 of the NDPS Act 1985 are limited in nature conferred for the purpose of entry, search, seizure and arrest without warrant along with safeguards enlisted thereof. The “enquiry” undertaken under the aforesaid provisions may lead to initiation of an investigation or enquiry by the officers empowered to do so either under Section 53 of the NDPS Act 1985 or otherwise. Thus, the officers who are invested with powers under Section 53 of the NDPS Act are “police officers” within the meaning of Section 25 of the Evidence Act, as a result of which any confessional statement made to them would be barred under the provisions of of the Evidence Act, and cannot be taken into account in order to convict an accused under the NDPS Act.

11. In recent judgment of Najmunisha v. State of Gujarat , 2024 SCC OnLine SC 520, AIRONLINE 2024 SC 306, Hon'ble Supreme Court has again held, relying upon Tofan Singh Case (supra) that a statement recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act cannot be considered to convict an accused person under the NDPS Act 1985.

12. Here it would be also pertinent to refer to Dipakbhai J. Patel Vs. State of Gujrat, (2021) 16 SCC 547. Though this judgment has been delivered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the context of framing of charge, the observation made herein is relevant even in the present context. Here, Hon’ble Apex Court has held that the material on the basis of which charge could be framed must be such material which could be translated into evidence during the trial. The relevant part of the judgment reads as follows:

"23. At the stage of framing the charge in accordance with the principles which have been laid down by this Court, what the court is expected to do is, it does not act as a mere post office. The court must indeed sift the material before it. The material to be sifted would be the material which is produced and relied upon by the prosecution. The sifting is not to be meticulous in the sense that the court dons the mantle of the trial Judge hearing