Magistrate's Direction for Police Inquiry Under Section 202 CrPC Is Valid; Petitioner Must Await Investigation Outcome: Bombay High Court Dismisses Advocate's Petition as Premature    |     Tribunal’s Compensation Exceeding Claimed Amount Found Just and Fair Under Motor Vehicles Act: No Deduction Errors Warrant Reduction: Gujrat High Court    |     When Two Accused Face Identical Charges, One Cannot Be Convicted While the Other is Acquitted: Supreme Court Emphasizes Principle of Parity in Acquittal    |     Supreme Court Limits Interim Protection for Financial Institutions, Modifies Order on FIRs Filed by Borrowers    |     Kerala High Court Grants Regular Bail in Methamphetamine Case After Delay in Chemical Analysis Report    |     No Sign of Recent Intercourse; No Injury Was Found On Her Body Or Private Parts: Gauhati High Court Acquits Two In Gang Rape Case    |     Failure to Disclose Relationship with Key Stakeholder Led to Setting Aside of Arbitral Award: Gujarat High Court    |     Strict Compliance with UAPA's 7-Day Timeline for Sanctions is Essential:  Supreme Court    |     PAT Teachers Entitled to Regularization from 2014, Quashes Prospective Regularization as Arbitrary: Himachal Pradesh High Court    |     Punjab and Haryana High Court Upholds Anonymity Protections for Victims in Sensitive Cases: Right to Privacy Prevails Over Right to Information    |     Certified Copy of Will Admissible Under Registration Act, 1908: Allahabad HC Dismisses Plea for Production of Original Will    |     Injuries on Non-Vital Parts Do Not Warrant Conviction for Attempt to Murder: Madhya Pradesh High Court Modifies Conviction Under Section 307 IPC to Section 326 IPC    |     Classification Based on Wikipedia Data Inadmissible; Tribunal to Reassess Using Actual Financial Records: PH High Court Orders Reconsideration of Wage Dispute    |     Mere Delay in Initiation Does Not Justify Reduction of Damages: Jharkhand High Court on Provident Fund Defaults    |     Legatee Can Continue Suit Without Probate, But Decree Contingent on Probate Approval: Orissa High Court    |     An Award that Shocks the Conscience of the Court Cannot Stand, Especially When Public Money is Involved: Calcutta HC Reduces Quantum by Half    |     Trademark Transaction Within Territoriality Principle Subject to Indian Tax Laws: Bombay High Court Dismisses Hindustan Unilever's Petition on Non-Deduction of TDS    |     Concealment of Material Facts Bars Relief under Article 226: SC Reprimands Petitioners for Lack of Bonafides    |     Without Determination of the Will's Genuineness, Partition is Impossible: Supreme Court on Liberal Approach to Pleading Amendments    |     Candidates Cannot Challenge a Selection Process After Participating Without Protest : Delhi High Court Upholds ISRO's Administrative Officer Recruitment    |     Invalid Bank Guarantee Invocation Found Fatal to Recovery Claim: Delhi High Court Dismisses GAIL’s Appeal    |     Adverse Remarks in APAR Recorded Without Objectivity and Likely Motivated by Bias: Delhi High Court Quashes Biased APAR Downgrade of CRPF Officer    |    

Non-Admissibility of Co-Accused Statements in NDPS Act Cases: Punjab and Haryana High Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant judgment that reinforces the principles of criminal jurisprudence, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has granted bail to an accused in a case under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act), while making pivotal observations on the admissibility of co-accused statements.

Justice Anoop Chitkara, presiding over the matter, underscored a critical legal standpoint: “Confessional statements under Section 67 of the NDPS Act are inadmissible in the trial of offences under the Act.” This observation came in the backdrop of the case against Veer Singh @ Veeru, who was implicated based on a disclosure statement of the main accused.

The petitioner, Veer Singh @ Veeru, faced allegations under Sections 22(c) and 29 of the NDPS Act and sought bail under Section 439 of the CrPC. His plea was strongly contested by the State, highlighting his extensive criminal history and the gravity of the charges against him.

However, the Court took a nuanced approach in assessing the bail application. It noted that while the petitioner’s criminal history was significant, the bail considerations under the NDPS Act necessitated a deeper analysis. “The burden is on the petitioner to satisfy the twin conditions put in place by the Legislature under Section 37 of the NDPS Act,” remarked Justice Chitkara.

In granting bail, the Court meticulously applied the principles laid down in previous landmark judgments. It placed substantial emphasis on ensuring that the bail conditions were stringent enough to prevent any tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses, as well as to safeguard society at large.

Date of Decision: 17.11.2023

Veer Singh @ Veeru VS State of Punjab 

Similar News