The Himachal Pradesh High Court dismissed a petition, filed for seeking the pre-arrest bail. The Court observed that even though the statement of the accused is not admissible under Section 67 of the NDPS Act still such a statement can be used to deny bail to the co-accused.
Brief Facts:
It has been asserted that the petitioner was arrayed as an accused based on a disclosure statement made by the co-accused in an FIR registered for the commission of an offense punishable under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. As per the FIR, the contraband was recovered from Saddam. He disclosed the name of the petitioner.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the Petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated. As per the police version, the petitioner was in touch with Saddam; however, the SIM was found in the name of Nadeem and not Saddam. Therefore, there is nothing to connect the petitioner except the disclosure statement made by co-accused Saddam, which is not sufficient. Therefore, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The Learned Counsel for the Respondent admitted that the co-accused was found in possession of a commercial quantity of Tramadol and rigors of Section 37 of the ND&PS Act apply to the present case. The investigation is at its initial stage and the petitioner is to be interrogated to determine the source and destination of the capsules. Therefore, he prayed that the present petition be dismissed.
Observations of the Court:
The Court noted the police have relied upon the statement made by Saddam (co-accused) as well as the call details record showing that the petitioner and Saddam were in touch with each other. Even the location of the petitioner was found near the place of the incident. It was submitted that the statement made by the co-accused is not admissible to connect the petitioner with the commission of a crime.
The Court observed that the statement made by the co-accused implicating the co-accused is sufficient to deny bail to the co-accused. Even though the statement of the accused is not admissible under Section 67 of the NDPS Act still such a statement can be used to deny bail to the co-accused. The Court said that it cannot be said that there are no reasonable grounds to connect the petitioner with the possession of the contraband or that he will not commit a similar offense while on bail. Hence, he is not entitled to bail because of the prohibition contained in Section 37 of the NDPS Act.
The decision of the Court:
The Himachal Pradesh High Court, dismissing the petition, held that the petitioner is not entitled to the concession of pre-arrest bail.
Case Title: Navej Khan v State of Himachal Pradesh
Coram: Hon’ble Justice Rakesh Kainthla
Case no.: Cr. MP (M) No. 2972 of 2023
Advocate for the Petitioner: Mr. Rajat Thakur
Advocate for the Respondents: Mr. R. P. Singh
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
