IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.40615 of 2022

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-6 Year-2021 Thana- GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL COMP.

District- Aurangabad

======================================================

Dharamraj Singh @ Junna, Son Of Haradev Yadav @ Hardev Sadhu @

Hardeo Singh, R/O Village- Nathpur, P.S.- Itahri, District- Buxar

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The Union of India through Intelligence Officer, Narcotics Control Bureau,

Patna Zonal Unit. ... ... Opposite Party/s

======================================================

Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s

:

Mr. Yogesh Chandra Verma- Sr. Advocate

Mr. Priyanka Singh- Advocate

For the N.C.B.

:

Mr. A. K. Pandey- SC-CGC

Mr. Ravinder Kumar Sharma- CGC

======================================================

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA

ORAL ORDER

8

07-12-2022

Heard learned senior counsel for the petitioner and

learned Central Government Counsel for the N.C.B.

The petitioner seeks bail in a case registered for the

offences punishable under Sections 8(c), r/w 20(b)(ii)(c), 25 and

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

The learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits

that the petitioner is in custody since 07.04.2021, he has

antecedent of one case and charge-sheet has been submitted in

the case.

This is the second attempt of the petitioner to seek

bail as earlier it was rejected by order dated 24.03.2022 in Cr.

Misc. No.52367 of 2021. The learned senior counsel submits

that the order dated 24.03.2022 in Cr. Misc. No.52367 of 2021

in detail recorded the allegation and submission made with

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.40615 of 2022(8) dt.07-12-2022

2/7

respect to the petitioner. It is next submitted that though charges

have been framed, but till today only one witness has been

examined out of six. It is also submitted that the Hon’ble

Supreme Court in the case of State by Narcotics Control

Bureau vs. Pallulabid Ahamad Arimutta and another, SLA

(Criminal) No.242 of 2022, along with other cases at

Paragraph-10 has held that in Tofan Singh vs State of Tamil

Nadu, (2021) 4 SCC 1, it has been held that a confessional

statement recorded under Section 67 of the Narcotic Drugs and

Psychotropic Substances Act will remain inadmissible in the

trial of an offence under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic

Substances Act. In the teeth of the aforesaid decision, the arrests

made by the petitioner- NCB, on the basis of the confession/

voluntary statement of the respondents or the co-accused under

Section 67 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances

Act, cannot form the basis for overturning the impugned orders

releasing them on bail. The CDR details of some of the accused

or the allegations of tampering of evidence on the part of one of

the respondents is an aspect that will be examined at the stage of

trial. For the aforesaid reason, this Court is not inclined to

interfere in the orders dated 16^th September, 2019, 14^th January,

2020, 16^th January, 2020, 19^th December, 2019 and 20^th Jaunary,

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.40615 of 2022(8) dt.07-12-2022

3/7

2020 passed in SLP (Cri.) No.@ Diary No.22702 of 2020, SLP

(Cri.) No.1454 of 2021, SLP (Cri.) No.1465 of 2021, SLP (Cri.)

No.1773-74/ 2021 and SLP (Cri.) No.2080 of 2021 respectively.

The impugned orders are, accordingly, upheld and the Special

Leave Petitions filed by the petitioner- NCB seeking

cancellation of bail granted to the respective respondents, are

dismissed as meritless.

The learned senior counsel thus relying on the

aforesaid judgment submits that in the present case also the

petitioner was not arrested from the spot and nothing was

recovered from his conscious possession and his name

transpired in the case based on confessional statement of the

apprehended accused which is not admissible in evidence in

terms of the law laid by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Tofa