Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Rakesh Kumar vs Union Of India on 10 September, 2025
[2025:RJ-JD:39097]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 7550/2025
Rakesh Kumar S/o Vinod Kumar, Aged About 28 Years, Resident
of Regar Mohalla Village Khachrol Police Station Mandalgarh
District Bhilwara Rajasthan. (At Present Lodged In District Jail
Bhilwara)
----Petitioner
Versus
The Union of India
----Respondent
Connected With
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 5882/2025
Satyanarayan Alias Sattu S/o Udailal, Aged About 33 Years, R/o
Near Charbhuja Temple Village Raysinghpura Post. Khachrol
Tehsil/P.S. Mandalgarh Dist. Bhilwara Rajasthan (At Present
Incarcerted In Dist. Jail Bhilwara)
----Petitioner
Versus
Union of India, through NCB
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Deepak Menaria
Mr. Vinod Kumar Sharma
For Respondent(s) : Mr. M.R. Pareek, Special PP for NCB
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR SHARMA
Order
Order Reserved on : 27/08/2025
Order Pronounced on : 10/09/2025
The present bail applications have been preferred by the
petitioners under Section 483 B.N.S.S. in connection with FIR
No.VIII(IO)10/NCB/JZU/2022 registered at Police Station NCB,
(Uploaded on 10/09/2025 at 04:19:27 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:39097] (2 of 10) [CRLMB-7550/2025]
Jodhpur for the offences punishable under Sections 8/29 of the
NDPS Act.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that no
contraband has been recovered from the conscious possession of
the petitioners. The only allegation against the petitioners is of
money transaction said to be made with the co-accused, which by
itself does not establish conscious possession, transportation, or
dealing with narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances. It is
further urged that the petitioners have been implicated on the
basis of the disclosure statement of the co-accused and such a
disclosure statement, standing alone, is not admissible in
evidence.
3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner also contended that the
entire case of the prosecution is primarily founded upon the
so-called confessional statement alleged to have been recorded by
the officers of the Central Bureau of Narcotics.
4. Learned counsel has also drawn attention of this Court to the
fact that similarly situated co-accused Baldev Singh Bishnoi, Anil
Suthar and Jagdish have already been enlarged on bail by the
respective co-ordinate Benches of this Court. It is contended that
the present petitioners, against whom no recovery has been
effected and their implication rests solely on the basis of the
information of the co-accused, stands on a better footing, and
therefore deserves parity in the matter of bail.
5. Lastly, learned counsel submitted that charge-sheet has
already been filed in the matter. The accused-petitioners are in
judicial custody and the trial of the case will take long time.
(Uploaded on 10/09/2025 at 04:19:27 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:39097] (3 of 10) [CRLMB-7550/2025]
Therefore, it is prayed that the accused-petitioners may be
enlarged on bail.
6. Controverting the arguments advanced by the learned
counsel for the petitioners, learned Public Prosecutor vehemently
submits that the petitioners are involved in financial transactions
and the money trail shows their nexus with the co-accused from
whom contraband was recovered. Learned Public Prosecutor
further alleges that the petitioners are involved in procurement
and distribution of narcotic substances. It is further alleged that a
substantial monetary transaction took place between the
petitioner and the co-accused, which is evidenced through bank
records and the call record.
7. I have considered the rival submissions advanced at the Bar
and scanned through the entire material available on record.
8. The prosecution case alleges that the petitioners are involved
in trading and circulation of narcotics. In pursuance of the Notice
issued by the Prosecution under Section 67 of the NDPS Act,
petitioners Rakesh Kumar and Satyanarayan @ Sattu appeared
before the Investigating Officer and voluntarily gave their
statements, extract of which read thus:
Rakesh Kumar -
As per the prosecution, the accused Rakesh
Kumar Verma S/o Vinod Verma admitted that he
had been involved in smuggling poppy husk since
2020 along with co-accused Murali Sharma,
Satyanarayan Jat @ Sattu, and Ladu Rebari. He
further disclosed that on 09.04.2022 and
14.04.2022, he facilitated the procurement and
loading of 160 kg and 155 kg of poppy husk
respectively for co-accused Anil Sain, for which
(Uploaded on 10/09/2025 at 04:19:27 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:39097] (4 of 10) [CRLMB-7550/2025]
he received payment in cash and online. He also
admitted that approximately 360 kg of poppy
husk was purchased jointly by him and his
associates from Rameshwar Lal Dhakad and sold
at a profit, and the amount transferred by Anil
Sain was withdrawn and distributed among
them. He identified the co-accused and admitted
to escorting the consignment up to Nandrai
village. Based on these admissions, he was
arrested on 16.10.2024 under Sections 8, 15,
and 29 of the NDPS Act, and during NCB
custody, he assisted in the identification of the
illegal poppy husk dumping and filling site in
Khacharol village.
Satyanarayan Jat @ Sattu -
That during the course of investigation, a notice
under Section 67 of the NDPS Act was served
upon accused Satyanarayan Jat @ Sattu, who in
his voluntary statement dated 18.10.2024,
admitted to involvement in smuggling poppy
husk since 2021 along with associates Rakesh
Verma, Murali Sharma, and Ladu Rebari. He
disclosed that on 09.04.2022, 160 kg of poppy
husk was procured from Rameshwar Lal Dhakad
and transported in a WagonR (RJ25 CA2711),
with payment made in cash and partly via
PhonePe. Further, on 14.04.2022, 350 kg of
poppy husk was brought in two rounds,
concealed near Satti Mata Mandir, Khacharol,
and later handed over to Anil Kumar Sen and
others for transportation.
9. The Apex Court had an occasion to consider the question in
the case of Kanhaiyalal Vs. Union of India reported in AIR
2008 SC 1044 that "Whether the confessions made before
(Uploaded on 10/09/2025 at 04:19:27 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:39097] (5 of 10) [CRLMB-7550/2025]
the officers of the Central Bureau of Narcotics are
admissible in evidence"? The Apex Court answered the
question in the affirmative and held that officers of the Central
Bureau of Narcotics are not police officers within the meaning of
Section 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act and, hence, confessions
made before them are admissible in evidence, observing as under:
"Since it has been held by this Court that an
officer for the purposes of Section 67 of the
NDPS Act read with Section 42 thereof, is not a
police officer, the bar under Sections 24 and 27
of the Evidence Act cannot be attracted and the
statement made by a person directed to appear
before the officer concerned may be relied upon
as a confessional statement against such
person. Since a conviction can be maintained
solely on the basis of a confession made under
Section 67 of the NDPS Act., we see no reason
to interfere with the conclusion of the High
Court convicting the appellant."
10. The Apex Court in the case of Ram Singh vs. Central
Bureau of Narcotics reported in AIR 2011 SC 2490 while
affirming the conclusion drawn in the case of Kanhaiyalal (supra)
made the following observations:
"8. In order to answer these questions it is
expedient to examine the scheme of the Act.
Section 42 of the Act confers on specified
categories of officers power of entry, search,
seizure and arrest without warrant or
authorization. Section 43 thereof confers the
power of seizure and arrest. Section 51 of the
Act, inter alia, provides application of the
(Uploaded on 10/09/2025 at 04:19:27 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:39097] (6 of 10) [CRLMB-7550/2025]
provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure to all
warrants issued and arrests, searches and
seizures made under the Act in so far as they are
not inconsistent with its provisions. Power to call
for information to the officers specified is
conferred by Section 67 of the Act and the
confessions in the present case have been
recorded in exercise of the said power. Section 25
of the Evidence Act makes confessional statement
given by an accused before police officers
inadmissible in evidence which cannot be brought
on record by the prosecution to obtain conviction.
Further Section 26 of the Evidence Act in no
uncertain terms provides that the confession
made while in custody of police officer cannot be
proved against accused to support the criminal
charge. Therefore, what needs to be considered is
as to whether the officers of the Central Bureau
of Narcotics, who had recorded the confessions,
are police officers within the meaning of Section
25 and 26 of the Evidence Act. True it is that
Section 53 of the Act confers powers to the
Central Government to invest officers of the
specified categories, the powers of an officer-in-
charge of police station but that itself, in our
opinion, shall not make them the police officers
within the meaning of Section 25 and 26 of the
Evidence Act. The officers with whom lie the
powers of search, seizure and investigation under
the Act have not been conferred with the power
to submit report under Section 173 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure. Such officer is required to lay
complaint in the Court of Special Judge for
prosecuting an accused. In our opinion the power
to submit report under Section 173 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure is necessary to make the
(Uploaded on 10/09/2025 at 04:19:27 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:39097] (7 of 10) [CRLMB-7550/2025]
officers of the Central Bureau of Narcotics police
officers within the meaning of Section 25 and 26
of the Evidence Act. The important attribute of
Police Officer is not only to investigate but also to
launch prosecution by filing a report or charge-
sheet. In view of the pronouncement of this Court
in the case of Raj Kumar Karwal vs. Union of
India and others, 1990 (2) SCC 409, this question
does not need much discussion. This was a case
under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic
Substances Act itself and on review of large
number of authorities, this Court came to the
following conclusion in paragraph 22 of the
judgment which reads as follows:
".........The important attribute of police
power is not only the power to investigate
into the commission of cognizable offence
but also the power to prosecute the
offender by filing a report or a charge-
sheet under Section 173 of the Code. That
is why this Court has since the decision in
Badku Joti Savant v. State of Mysore AIR
1966 SC 1746, accepted the ratio that
unless an officer is invested under any
special law with the powers of
investigation under the Code, including the
power to submit a report under Section
173, he cannot be described to be a
`police officer' under Section 25, Evidence
Act........."
9. This Court had the occasion to consider this
question further in the case of Kanhaiyalal vs.
Union of India, 2008 (4) SCC 668, wherein it has
been held as follows:
"44. In addition to the above, in Raj Kumar
Karwal v. Union of India this Court held
that officers of the Department of Revenue
Intelligence who have been vested with
powers of an officer in charge of a police
station under Section 53 of the NDPS Act,
1985, are not "police officers" within the
(Uploaded on 10/09/2025 at 04:19:27 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:39097] (8 of 10) [CRLMB-7550/2025]
meaning of Section 25 of the Evidence Act.
Therefore, a confessional statement
recorded by such officer in the course of
investigation of a person accused of an
offence under the Act is admissible in
evidence against him. It was also held that
power conferred on officers under the NDPS
Act in relation to arrest, search and seizure
were similar to powers vested on officers
under the Customs Act. Nothing new has
been submitted which can persuade us to
take a different view.
45. Considering the provisions of Section
67 of the NDPS Act and the views
expressed by this Court in Raj Kumar
Karwal case with which we agree, that an
officer vested with the powers of an officer
in charge of a police station under Section
53 of the above Act is not a "police officer"
within the meaning of Section 25 of the
Evidence Act, it is clear that a statement
made under Section 67 of the NDPS Act is
not the same as a statement made under
Section 161 of the Code, unless made
under threat or coercion. It is this vital
difference, which allows a statement made
under Section 67 of the NDPS Act to be
used as a confession against the person
making it and excludes it from the
operation of Sections 24 to 27 of the
Evidence Act."
10. From what has been observed above, the
officers vested with the powers of investigation
under the Act are not police officers and,
therefore, the confessions recorded by such
officers are admissible in evidence. Therefore,
the question posed at the outset is answered in
the affirmative and it is held that officers of the
Central Bureau of Narcotics are not police officers
within the meaning of Section 25 and 26 of the
Evidence Act and, hence, confessions made
before them are admissible in evidence."
11. Thus, the confessional statements of the petitioners
voluntarily recorded by the Prosecution under Section 67 of the
(Uploaded on 10/09/2025 at 04:19:27 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:39097] (9 of 10) [CRLMB-7550/2025]
NDPS Act, at this stage, constitute material evidence and the
same cannot be discarded outrightly, especially when the same
are supported by corroborative evidence in the form of financial
transactions, bank records and mobile communications with the
co-accused.
12. So far as the argument of learned counsel for the petitioners
that similarly situated co-accused have already been enlarged on
bail is concerned, this Court is of the opinion that though the
recovery of contraband was made from the conscious possession
of the co-accused who have been enlarged on bail, however, the
role attributed to the present petitioners, is qualitatively distinct.
The allegations against the present petitioners are that they are
involved in trading and circulation of narcotics, thus, such
allegations cannot be equated with mere possession. In the
instant case, the alleged role of the petitioners in trading and
circulating narcotics makes the case distinct from that of the co-
accused who have been granted bail. Moreover, the co-accused
were granted bail considering their custodial period of
approximately two and a half years, whereas the present
petitioners have been in custody for barely 11 months. Thus, the
argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is not tenable.
13. As regards the contention of the learned counsel for the
petitioners that the implication of the petitioners rests solely upon
the disclosure statements of the co-accused, this Court is of the
considered opinion that such argument, at this stage, cannot be a
ground for grant of bail. The Prosecution has brought on record
(Uploaded on 10/09/2025 at 04:19:27 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:39097] (10 of 10) [CRLMB-7550/2025]
substantial material in the form of call detail records, financial
transactions, and bank account statements, which prima facie
corroborate the nexus between the petitioners and the co-
accused. Therefore, the argument that the petitioners have been
enroped only on the basis of the statements of the co-accused is
not substainable.
14. The next contention advanced by the learned counsel for the
petitioners is that the petitioners have been in judicial custody
since October 2024. Pertinent to note that in a grave offence such
as one under the NDPS Act hardly eleven months have elapsed
since their arrest.
15. In view of the aforesaid discussion and considering the
severity of the allegations and the role attributed to the present
petitioners, this Court does not find any justifiable ground to
enlarge the petitioners on bail.
16. Accordingly, the present bail applications are hereby
dismissed.
(CHANDRA SHEKHAR SHARMA),J
65-66 Anil/-
(Uploaded on 10/09/2025 at 04:19:27 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
