news details |
|
|
| Police confession can’t sustain NDPS custody: High Court | | |  Early Times Report
Jammu, Aug 8: The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has granted bail to an accused in a commercial-quantity heroin case, holding that a confessional statement recorded by police—whether of the accused himself or a co-accused—cannot by itself justify continued incarceration under the stringent provisions of the NDPS Act.
Justice Shahzad Azeem, while allowing the bail application of Raju Kumar, observed that except for the confessional statements of the accused, the prosecution had failed to place any tangible material connecting him with the alleged narcotics offence. The petitioner was facing trial under Sections 8, 21, 22 and 29 of the NDPS Act.
The case arose after Police Station Ramgarh laid a special naka on January 23, 2025, where co-accused Sukesh Kumar and Kishore Rishidev were intercepted. During personal search, 255.39 grams of heroin was allegedly recovered from Sukesh Kumar. During investigation, the two allegedly told police that the heroin had been received from Raju Kumar and another accused, following which they too were arrested.
The High Court noted that no prohibited drug was recovered from Raju Kumar, nor was anything recovered at his instance which could constitute an offence under the NDPS Act. The only material relied upon against him was the alleged police confession and identification of an agricultural field from where the contraband was claimed to have originated.
Appearing for the petitioner, Advocate Mumtaz Chowdhary argued that there was not an iota of admissible evidence against his client apart from the co-accused’s statement. Deputy Advocate General Vishal Bharti, appearing for the UT, opposed the plea, contending that the recovery was of commercial quantity and attracted the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act.
The Court ruled that where the only material against an accused is a co-accused’s statement made before police, with no recovery, no independent corroboration and no other incriminating material, continued incarceration cannot be justified merely by invoking Section 37.
Referring to the Supreme Court judgment in Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu, the High Court reiterated that officers exercising powers under the NDPS Act are police officers for the purpose of confessional statements and such statements are inadmissible.
The Court further observed that even though the heroin recovered from the co-accused was of commercial quantity, there was prima facie no admissible evidence connecting Raju Kumar either with the recovery or with any alleged conspiracy.
Holding that there were reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioner was not guilty of the alleged offences and noting absence of criminal antecedents, the High Court admitted him to bail on a bond of ₹50,000 with two sureties of the like amount, subject to other conditions. (JNF) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
