The Himachal Pradesh High Court allowed a petition, filed for seeking regular bail in a case registered against the petitioner for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 21 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. The Court observed that a confession made by a co-accused cannot be taken as a substantive piece of evidence against another co-accused and can only be utilized to lend assurance to the other evidence.
Brief Facts:
It has been asserted that an FIR dated 18.11.2023 was registered against the petitioner for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 21 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. It was asserted that the Police party was on patrolling duty when a piece of secret information was received that Vijay Kumar and Rahul were involved in the sale/purchase of heroin. The police searched the room and recovered 7.34 grams of heroin from the room. The police seized the heroin and arrested the occupants of the room. The result from FSL was received, which confirmed the substance to be a sample of Diacetylmorphine (Heroin).
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the Petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated. There is no material to connect him with the commission of the crime except the statement made by the co-accused, which is not admissible. As per the prosecution case, money was transferred to the account of Shubhankar Thakur. However, he was not arrested and he was found to be present at Pathankot for a considerable period, which falsifies the prosecution’s version regarding the involvement of the petitioner.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The Learned Counsel for the Respondent submitted that the petitioner is involved in the commission of a heinous offence. The consumption of heroin is adversely affecting the younger generation and the petitioner should not be released on bail. Hence, he prayed that the present petition be dismissed.
Observations of the Court:
The Court noted that a statement made by the co-accused during the investigation is hit by Section 162 of Cr.P.C. and cannot be used as a piece of evidence. Further, the confession made by the co-accused will be inadmissible because of Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act.
The Court observed that a confession made by a co-accused cannot be taken as a substantive piece of evidence against another co-accused and can only be utilized to lend assurance to the other evidence. Therefore, no advantage can be derived by the prosecution from the confessional statement made by the co-accused implicating the petitioner. This is not a legally admissible piece of evidence and cannot be used against the petitioner.
The decision of the Court:
The Himachal Pradesh High Court, allowing the petition, held that there was insufficient material to connect the petitioner with the commission of crime.
Case Title: Narender Singh v State of Himachal Pradesh
Coram: Hon’ble Justice Rakesh Kainthla
Case No.: Cr. MP (M) No. 3135 of 2023
Advocate for the Petitioner: Mr. Abhishek Kaushik
Advocate for the Respondents: Mr. Jitender Sharma
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
