Contention that disclosure statement is inadmissible as evidence is not correct: HC while denying bail plea in narcotics case

Read Order: Pardeep v. State of Haryana 

Vivek Gupta

Chandigarh, July 8, 2021: Denying pre-arrest bail in a narcotics case, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has held as incorrect the contention of the petitioner that he has been charged on the basis of the disclosure statement of the co-accused, which is inadmissible as evidence.

“Section 30 of the Indian Evidence Act provides that when more than one person are being tried jointly for the same offence, and a confession made by one of such persons affecting himself and other of such persons is proved, the Court may take into consideration such confession as against such other person as well as against the person who makes such confession. Such disclosure statement of co-accused can certainly be taken into consideration for providing lead in the investigation,” said a Bench of Justice HS Madaan.

The case pertained to the pre-arrest bail plea of petitioner Pardeep, named as accused in an FIR filed on February 27, 2021, under Sections 21(b) and 27-A of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985, registered with Hisar City police station in Haryana.

As per the FIR, the accused Bijender Singh was arrested by the police and he was found to be in possession of 10 gms of heroin.

During the course of investigation, Bijender Singh disclosed that the contraband recovered from him had been supplied by the present petitioner Pardeep. Later Pardeep was nominated as an accused in this case.

After being nominated in this case and apprehending his arrest, Pardeep had approached the Sessions Court at Hisar seeking grant of pre-arrest bail by filing an application, which was assigned to Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar. However, his application was dismissed on March 15, 2021.

Now Pardeep approached the high court on the ground that he was nominated as supplier of the contraband in the disclosure statement of Bijender Singh, which is inadmissible as evidence.

Justice HS Madaan ruled that the facts and circumstances of the case do not call for acceptance of the petition.

“The contention of the petitioner that he has been charged on the basis of disclosure statement of co-accused, which is inadmissible in evidence, such contention is not correct,” he observed while citing Section 30 of the Indian Evidence Act.

“The custodial interrogation of the petitioner is definitely required for complete and effective investigation to find out from where he had been procuring the contraband and to which persons he had been supplying the same as well as where the proceeds of the drug peddling have been kept/invested. In case custodial interrogation of the petitioner is denied to the investigating agency, it would leave many loose ends and gaps in the investigation affecting the investigation being carried out adversely, which is not called for,” the High Court said.

Further noting that the petitioner is also involved in two more cases,  the Bench said, “Here I do not see any reason to record the requisite satisfaction keeping in view the past criminal record of the petitioner and other facts and circumstances of the case. Though Section 37 provides bar to release of an accused on regular bail but this provision also comes into play in case of grant of pre-arrest bail, scope of which is much less.”