KUMAR AND ORS. Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners/Accused Nos.1 and 2, who were arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 15/2/2019 for an offence under Sec. 8(c) r/w. 20(b)(ii)(c) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for brevity "NDPS Act"), in Crime No.438 of 2018 on the file of the respondent police, seek bail.

(2.) The case of the prosecution is that the Sub-Inspector of Police of D-1 Ramanathapuram Law and Order Police Station, Coimbatore, received an information that a person was in possession of Ganja near KTM showroom at Sungam Bypass Road, Coimbatore. After compliance of the statutory provisions under Sec. 41 of the NDPS Act, the police officer, along with the team, went to the spot at 09.30 a.m. and surrounded the person and came to know his name as Rajesh Kumar. This accused person was found in possession of 35 kg of ganja, kept in a nylon bag. After compliance of the mandatory provisions, the same was seized under mahazar in the presence of independent witnesses. Thereafter, his confession statement was also recorded. Based on his confession, the petitioners herein, who are ranked as A1 and A2, were added as accused persons. The petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.9903 of 2019 was already a remand prisoner in Crime No.789 of 2018 and he was arrested under P.T. Warrant. The petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.9260 of 2019 was already a remand prisoner in Crime No.275 of 2018 and he was arrested under P.T. Warrant and both the accused persons were remanded to judicial custody on 15/2/2019. There are totally three accused persons in this case and the petitioners are A1 and A2.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in this case by the respondent police. The learned counsel submitted that, except the alleged confession by the co-accused, there is absolutely no other material available as against the petitioners. The learned counsel submitted that, admittedly, no seizure was effected from the petitioners and the petitioners were already remand prisoners in the above said crime numbers and in order to add one more case against the petitioners, they have been falsely implicated in this case. The learned counsel submitted that the confession of the co-accused cannot be treated to be a statement under Sec. 67 of the NDPS Act insofar as these petitioners are concerned and it can be relied upon, at the best, only under Sec. 30 of the Indian Evidence Act. The learned counsel, in order to substantiate the same, relied upon the following judgments.