INTELLIGENCE OFFICER DRI Vs. AMJAD HUSEEIN KHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present application has been preferred by the applicant-Intelligence Officer, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (hereinafter referred to as DRI), for cancellation of bail granted to respondent No. 1 Amjad Hussein Khan by the learned Special Judge, Greater Bombay by order dated 30th May 2002 in N. D. P. S. Special Case No. 122 of 2000. The learned Special Judge granted bail to the respondent No. 1 relying on two unreported judgments of this Court i. e. in Criminal Application No. 1788 of 2002 (Smt. Hamidia Sayed Ali Shaikh v. N. C. B. and Ors.) and Criminal Application No. 1816 of 2002 (Mohamed Javed Haji Anwar v. State of Maharashtra and Anr. ). The decision in Criminal Application No. 1788 of 2002 and Criminal Application No. 1816 is dated 16th May 2002. The learned Special Judge granted bail to the respondent/accused holding that statement of respondent-accused recorded under Section 67 of N. D. P. S. Act which was confessional in nature was hit by Article 20 (3.) of the Constitution following the two orders dated 16. 5. 2002 delivered by the learned Single Judge of this Court during the summer vacation Criminal Application No. 1788 of 2002 and Criminal Application No. 1816 of 2002.

(2.) THE applicant had earlier preferred two applications for bail which were rejected by the Special Judge in July 2001 and thereafter in December 2001. Thereafter, a third application came to be preferred by the Respondent No. 1 before the Special Judge in May 2002 for bail on the basis of the view taken by this Court in Criminal Application No. 1788 of 2002 and 1816 of 2002, that the statement of accused recorded under Section 67 of N. D. P. S. Act in which the accused had confessed their guilt, was hit by testimonial compulsion against which the guarantee is provided by Article 20 (3) of Constitution of India.

(3.) THE third application for bail was based precisely on the point decided by this Court in the two applications i. e. Criminal Application Nos. 1788 of 2002 and 1816 of 2002. The contention in the third application was that the facts therein are identical to the facts in Applications Nos. 1788 and 1816 of 2002 and hence the confessional statement of the accused recorded by the officer of DRI was hit by the provisions of Article 20 (3) of Constitution of India.