The Hon’ble bench comprising hon’ble justice raj Mohan Singh relying on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Tofan Singh vs State of Tamil Nadu held that “As Any confessional statement made before the police officer cannot be proved against him under Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, Statement made under Section 67 of NDPS Act also cannot be used as a confessional statement in the trial of an offense under NDPS Act.”
The petition herein is filed for grant of anticipatory bail by an accused against whom an FIR has been registered under Sections 15, 18, 27A, 29 of NDPS Act, under Sections 140, 188, 216, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 474 IPC and under Section 6 of Official Secret Act.
Further, Petitioner herein has been implicated on the basis of disclosure statement of co-accused from whom 248 kgs of poppy husk, 1 Kg 500 grams of opium, and 199 Kgs Khas were recovered. FIR was registered but there was no mention of the name of the petitioner herein.
Pertinent to note here that, previously on an application for anticipatory bail by the petitioner it was ordered on 27.05.2020 that “petitioner shall be released on interim bail to satisfaction of arresting/investigating officer on a condition that he shall abide by section 438(2) Crpc.”
moreover, for the state to file a detailed reply the case was adjourned.
Needful to mention, counsel for the State contended that the petitioner was escorting the canter in which the contraband was present and he was assigned the duty of giving signal in case of presence of police on the way.
It is further relied upon call details, tower location of the petitioner and the co-accused, and also rely upon bank statement showing deposit of amount in the account of co-accused.
Moreover, it is contended by the petitioner’s counsel that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case only on the basis of the disclosure statement of the co-accused.
Lastly, the hon’ble high court of Punjab and Haryana confirmed the order dated 27.05.2020.
