Accused Loses Right To Default Bail By Acquiescence If Extension Orders Are Challenged Only After Chargesheet Filing: Supreme Court AP High Court Orders Release Of Vehicle Seized For Mineral Transport Violations Upon Payment Of Penalty, Says Rules Don't Mandate Indefinite Detention Short Time Gap Between 'Last Seen' And Death Clinches Murder Conviction Against Fired Driver: Allahabad High Court Court Must Restore Possession To Dispossessed Party If Ex-Parte Decree Is Set Aside Even If Property Descriptions Differ: Andhra Pradesh High Court Management Cannot Deny Compassionate Appointment Citing Delay If It Failed To Maintain Service Records: Calcutta High Court Long Possession Alone Does Not Establish Tenancy; Burden Of Proof Lies On Person Claiming Status Of Tenant: Bombay High Court Consent Of Minor Immaterial: Delhi High Court Upholds Rape Conviction But Acquits Man Of Kidnapping Charges Notional Income Of Minor In Motor Accident Claims Must Be Based On Minimum Wages Of Skilled Workmen: Supreme Court Enhances Compensation To ₹56.8 Lakhs Revenue Records Serve Only Fiscal Purpose, Cannot Be Treated As Proof Of Title To Property: Supreme Court Executing Court Cannot Grant 'Deemed Extension' Of Time For Deposit In Specific Performance Decree: Supreme Court Specific Performance Decree Becomes Inexecutable If Balance Sale Consideration Not Deposited Within Stipulated Time: Supreme Court Supreme Court Protects MSMEs From Closure Over Missing Environmental Clearance If Pollution Boards Were Unaware Of Requirement Industrial Units Operating With Valid PCB Consents Can't Be Closed Merely For Technical Want Of Prior Environmental Clearance: Supreme Court Punishment On Charge Not Framed In Show Cause Notice Violates Natural Justice: Supreme Court Reduces Doctor's Penalty To Censure Plea Of Acquiescence Cannot Defeat Lawful Title Claim When Encroachment Is Established: Madras High Court Board Of Revenue Can't Quash Unchallenged Orders While Exercising Revisional Jurisdiction: Orissa High Court Penetration To Any Extent Sufficient For Offence Under POCSO Act; Intact Hymen No Bar For Conviction: Meghalaya High Court Expeditious Conclusion Of Summary Force Court Trial Not Arbitrary If Procedure Followed; ITBPF Act Self-Contained: Punjab & Haryana High Court Order 23 Rule 1 CPC Doesn't Bar Appeal Filed Prior To Withdrawal Of Earlier Defective Appeal Against Same Order: Madhya Pradesh High Court Appointment Of Receiver Is An 'Extreme Remedy', Cannot Be Ordered Lightly Especially After Decades Of Inaction: Punjab & Haryana High Court

Bald confession hit by Section 25 of Evidence Act – Pb&Hry High Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


It has been observed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court that if 'any person concerned', makes a bald confessional statement, it would be hit by Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, and/or if any person concerned, during the course of his custodial interrogation, also makes a bald statement, thereupon his bald confession, would be also hit by Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act.

Section 439 Cr.P.C, Sections 21,22 ,67, 29 and 37 NDPS Act , Section 25, 27 Evidence Act – Bail – Facts -heavy recovery of Drug from one accused Annu – made a disclosure statement revealed purchased the contraband  from accused Feroz Ahmed - made a disclosure statement - purchased the contraband from one Anuj Kumar – from Anuj Kumar police recovered -13 boxes of TRAMADOL HYDROCHLORIDE CAPSULES containing 3900 capsules, and, 19 boxes of alprazolam tablets containing 11400 tablets - made a disclosure statement - applicant Amit Khurana supplier of the  psychotropic substance, as became recovered from his alleged conscious and exclusive possession – applicant arrested on 26.05.2021 – Bail filed.

Officers investigating offences are police officers within  Indian Evidence Act - confessional statements barred - cannot be taken into account for convicting any accused under the NDPS Act - bar created against the inadmissibility – lifted – when discovered in consequence of information received - disclosure statement, is to be accompanied by further corroborative evidence – only a bald confessional statement hit by Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act..

Further observed by Pb & Hry. High Court A circumspect analysis of the provisions carried in Section 27 of the Act (supra), makes a clear display that, when in pursuance to a confession or information received from an accused, especially during the course of his custodial interrogation, by a police officer, and, when thereafter the fact confessed or the information revealed by such accused person, to the police officer concerned, becomes discovered, thereupon the bar created against the inadmissibility of a bald confessional statement, as made to a police officer, by an accused, becomes lifted, or became relieved, and/or, in other words, the fact discovered in pursuance to a confessional statement, as made by an accused, rather during the course of his custodial interrogation, by the investigating officer, becomes both, admissible as well as relevant.

Bail Dismissed

D.D: 21.12.2021

AMIT KHURANA Versus STATE OF HARYANA

Latest Legal News