[ad_1]
Patna High Court – Orders
Adalat Rai vs The Union Of India Through Director, … on 4 July, 2025
Author: Rajesh Kumar Verma
Bench: Rajesh Kumar Verma
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.30399 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-27 Year-2021 Thana- N.C.B (GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL)
District- Patna
======================================================
ADALAT RAI S/o- Late Ram Jawahar Rai @ Jawahar Ray Village- Rasulpur
Habib Ps- Desari Chandpura OP Dist- Vaishali
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The Union of India through Director, Narcotics Control Bureau, Patna Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Y.C. Verma, Sr. Advocate
: Mr. Ganesh Prasad Singh, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Ram Anurag Singh, CGC
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
ORAL ORDER
3 04-07-2025
Heard Mr. Y.C. Verma, learned senior counsel for
the petitioner and Mr. Ram Anurag Singh, learned counsel for
the Union of India.
2. Petitioner seeks bail who is in custody since
07.04.2022 in connection with N.D.P.S Special Case No. 182 of
2021 arising out of Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB) case No.
27 of 2021, filed on 22.11.2021 for the offences punishable
under Sections 8(c), 20(b)(ii)(c), 25 and 29 of N.D.P.S. Act.
3. According to FIR, 311.600 kgs of Ganja has been
recovered from the truck in question.
4. Earlier the prayer for bail of the petitioner was
rejected vide order dated 26.04.2024 passed in Cr. Misc. No.
27516 of 2024.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.30399 of 2025(3) dt.04-07-2025
2/6
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner has clean antecedent and he has falsely been
implicated in the present case. He further submits that neither
the petitioner was apprehended with the truck from which Ganja
alleged to be recovered nor any incriminating article has been
recovered from the possession of the petitioner. The petitioner
has been made accused only on the basis of statement of
apprehended person, namely, Ranjan Kumar Ray recorded on
31.12.2021 under Section 67 of N.D.P.S Act.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits
that the petitioner had received notice under Section 67 of the
N.D.P.S Act from NCB, Patna and he had voluntarily appeared
before the Officer of NCB on 06.04.2022 but NCB, Patna had
arrested to the petitioner and the petitioner is in custody since
07.04.2022.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in
the present case the NCB has not collected whisper
material/evidence in collaboration of either statement of
apprehended persons with truck and Ganja-like substance or on
the basis of statement of the petitioner recorded under Section
67 of N.D.P.S Act and apart from that as per CDR report which
suggest that the petitioner was not in touch with the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.30399 of 2025(3) dt.04-07-2025
3/6
apprehended co-accused person.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon
the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported as Tofan
Singh vs. State of Tamil Nadu(2021) 4 SCC 1, which is quoted
hereinbelow:-
“Para 155 Thus, to arrive at conclusion that a
confessional statement made before an officer
designated under section 42 or 53 can be the
basis to convict a person under the NDPS Act,
without any non obstante clause doing away
with section 25 of the Evidence Act, and
without any safeguards, would be a direct
infringement of the constitutional guarantees
contained in Articles 14, 20(3) and 21 of the
Constitution of India.
Para 158(1) That the officer who are invested
with powers under section 53 of the NDPS Act
are “Police officers” within the meaning of
section 25 of the Evidence Act, as a result of
which any confessional statement made to
them would be barred under the provisions of
section 25 of the Evidence Act, and cannot be
taken into account in order to convict an
accused under the NDPS Act.
Para – 158.2 That a statement recorded
under section 67 of the NDPS Act cannot be
used as a confessional statement in the trail
of an offence under the NDPS Act.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.30399 of 2025(3) dt.04-07-2025
4/6
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that sole
ground to arraign the petitioner as an accused in this case on the
basis of so-called alleged disclosure of co-accused as well as of
the petitioner under Section 67 of N.D.P.S Act is inadmissible in
terms of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court (supra).
10. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
though charges were framed against the petitioner in the year
2022 vide order dated 04.11.2022 but after lapse of more than
three years, NCB has produced only three witnesses out of 6
prosecution witness in support of their case.
11. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon
the order dated 03.12.2024 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 42392 of
2024 by which one Jagdish Kumar who was made accused in
N.D.P.S Case No. 133 of 2021under Section 20,25 and 29 of
N.D.P.S Act of the recovery of 382.50 kg of Ganja. Considering
the ratio laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
Mohd. Muslim @ Hussain vs. (NCT of Delhi) reported in 2023
Live Law(SC) 260 and also ratio laid down by Supreme Court
in the case of legal Aid Committee Representing Under Trial
Prisoners vs. Union of India and other reported in (1994) 6 SCC
731 and case of the petitioner is better footing of the said case of
Jagdish Kumar as nothing was recovered from the possession of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.30399 of 2025(3) dt.04-07-2025
5/6
the petitioner and he has been put behind the bar for long period
merely on the ground of confessional statement of co-accused in
which co-accused taken name of the petitioner as well as
showing extra judicial confession of the petitioner.
12. The learned counsel for the Union of India has
vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner and
submits that it appears from the FIR and seizure list that the
recovery of the contraband is more than the commercial
quantity so there is embargo under Section 37 of the N.D.P.S
Act to grant privilege of bail to the petitioner. He further
submits that although charge has been framed against the
petitioner long back in 2022 itself and apart from that out of 06
prosecution witness, 04 prosecution witness has been examined
and remaining 02 independent witness is yet to be examined.
13. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances
and the fact that the petitioner has clean antecedent as well as
order dated 03.12.2024 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 42392 of 2024
by which similarly situated co-accused persons in connection
with other N.D.P.S matter have been granted bail, let the
petitioner, above named, be released on bail on furnishing bail
bond of Rs. 50,000/- (Fifty Thousand) with two sureties of the
like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Additional &
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.30399 of 2025(3) dt.04-07-2025
6/6
Session Judge 17th, Patna in connection with Narcotics Control
Bureau (NCB) Case No. 27 of 2021, subject to the following
conditions:-
i. Petitioner shall co-operate in the trial and shall be
properly represented on each and every date fixed by the court
and shall remain physically present as directed by the court and
on his absence on two consecutive dates without sufficient
reason, his bail bond shall be cancelled by the Court below.
ii. If the petitioner tampers with the evidence or the
witnesses, in that case, the prosecution will be at liberty to
move for cancellation of bail.
iii. And further condition that the court below shall
verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioner and in case at
any stage it is found that the petitioner has concealed his
criminal antecedent, the court below shall take step for
cancellation of bail bond of the petitioner. However, the
acceptance of bail bonds in terms of the above-mentioned order
shall not be delayed for purpose of or in the name of
verification.
(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J)
Suruchi/-
U T
[ad_2]
Source link