MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

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 

Latest Legal News