Sonu @ Sonu Kumar Yadav Vs The State of Bihar

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

¶2

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.32755 of 2025

¶3

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-52 Year-2024 Thana- KASBA District- Purnia

¶4

======================================================

¶5

Sonu @ Sonu Kumar Yadav S/o Ashok Yadav R/o Village/ MohallaBalughat, P.S.- K. Nagar, District- Purnea

¶6

... ... Petitioner

¶7

Versus The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner : Mr. N.K. Agrawal, Sr. Advocate Mr. Vikram Singh, Advocate Ms. Diksha Kumari, Advocate Mr. Kumar Rajdeep, Advocate For the State : Mr. Upendra Kumar, APP ======================================================

¶8

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA KUMAR

¶9

ORAL ORDER

¶10

4 04-09-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

¶11

The petitioner seeks bail, apprehending his arrest, in connection with Kasba P.S. Case No. 52 of 2024, dated 24.02.2024, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 21(C) and 29 of the NDPS Act.

¶12

As per allegation, 181 bottles of cough syrup of 100

¶13

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.32755 of 2025(4) dt.04-09-2025 2/8

¶14

ml. each containing codeine has been recovered from the house of the co-accused, Md. Taukir. As per further case of the prosecution, in the confessional statement of the co-accused before the police, it has transpired that the seized contraband has been supplied by the Petitioner to the co-accused from whose house the contraband has been recovered.

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case. He further submits that the confessional statement of the co-accused before the police is not admissible. As such, such confessional statement of the co-accused against the Petitioner cannot be proved, and hence, it cannot be considered to sustain the prosecution case against the Petitioner. As such, there is no legally admissible material against the Petitioner.

¶16

It is also stated in paragraph no. 2 of the bail petition that the petitioner has not moved this Court earlier either for anticipatory bail or regular one in the instant case.

¶17

It has further been stated in paragraph no.3 of the bail petition that the petitioner has no criminal antecedents.

¶18

However, learned APP for the State vehemently opposes the prayer of the Petitioner for bail submitting that huge quantity of cough syrup containing codeine has been recovered

¶19

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.32755 of 2025(4) dt.04-09-2025 3/8

¶20

and the total quantity of the recovered cough syrup constitute commercial quantity of the contraband if the neutral substance is taken into consideration while determining the quantity of the drugs in the light of the celebrated Judgment of Hira Singh . Hence, as per learned APP, in view of the commercial quantity of the recovered contraband, the Petitioner is not entitled to get anticipatory bail.

¶21

I considered the rival submissions of the parties and perused the material on record.

¶22

I find that the whole case of the prosecution is based on confessional statement of the co-accused as recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act against the Petitioner.

¶23

Here it is required to refer to Tofan Singh Vs. State of T.N. 2021 (4) SCC 1 wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court has clearly held that the confessional statement of the accused as recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act is not admissible observing that the powers conferred on the empowered officers under Sections 41 and 42 of the NDPS Act 1985 read with Section 67 of the NDPS Act 1985 are limited in nature conferred for the purpose of entry, search, seizure and arrest without warrant along with safeguards enlisted thereof. The “enquiry” undertaken under the aforesaid provisions may lead to

¶24

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.32755 of 2025(4) dt.04-09-2025 4/8

¶25

initiation of an investigation or enquiry by the officers empowered to do so either under Section 53 of the NDPS Act 1985 or otherwise. Thus, the officers who are invested with powers under Section 53 of the NDPS Act are “police officers” within the meaning of Section 25 of the Evidence Act, as a result of which any confessional statement made to them would be barred under the provisions of Section 25 of the Evidence Act, and cannot be taken into account in order to convict an accused under the NDPS Act.

¶26

11 . In recent judgement of Najmunisha v. State of Gujarat, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 520, AIRONLINE 2024 SC 306, Hon'ble Supreme Court has again held, relying upon Tofan Singh Case (supra) that a statement recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act cannot be considered to convict an accused person under the NDPS Act 1985.

¶27

Here it is also relevant to refer to Dipakbhai J. Patel Vs. State of Gujrat, (2021) 16 SCC 547 . Though this judgment has been delivered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the context of framing of charge, the observation made herein is relevant even in the present context. Here, Hon’ble Apex Court has held that the material on the basis of which charge could be framed must be such material which could be translated into

¶28

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.32755 of 2025(4) dt.04-09-2025 5/8

¶29

evidence during the trial. The relevant part of the judgment reads as follows:

¶30

"23. At the stage of framing the charge in accordance with the principles which have been laid down by this Court, what the court is expected to do is, it does not act as a mere post office. The court must indeed sift the material before it. The material to be sifted would be the material which is produced and relied upon by the prosecution. The sifting is not to be meticulous in the sense that the court dons the mantle of the trial Judge hearing arguments after the entire evidence has been adduced after a full-fledged trial and the question is not whether the prosecution has made out the case for the conviction of the accused. All that is required is, the court must be satisfied that with the materials available, a case is made out for the accused to stand trial. A strong suspicion suffices. However, a strong suspicion must be founded on some material. The material must be such as can be translated into evidence at the stage of trial. The strong suspicion cannot be the pure subjective satisfaction based on the moral notions of the Judge that here is a case where it is possible that the accused has committed the offence. Strong suspicion must be the suspicion which is premised on some material which commends itself to the court as sufficient to entertain the prima facie view that the accused has committed the offence."

¶31

(Emphasis supplied)

¶32

Similar view has been expressed by Hon’ble

¶33

Supreme Court in Karan Talwar Vs. The State of Tamilnadu (2024) SCC Online SC 3803 , holding as follows relying upon Dipakbhai J. Patel case (supra) :

¶34

“10. …………………….There is absolutely no case that any recovery of contraband was recovered from the appellant. As regards the confession statement of the appellant in view of Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 there can be no doubt with respect to the fact that it is inadmissible in evidence. In this context it is worthy to refer to the decision of this Court in Ram Singh v. Central Bureau of Narcotics, (2011) 11 SCC 347 . In the said decision, this Court held that Section 25 of the

¶35

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.32755 of 2025(4) dt.04-09-2025 6/8

¶36

Indian Evidence Act would make confessional statement of accused before police inadmissible in evidence and it could not be brought on record by prosecution to obtain conviction. Shortly stated, except the confessional statement of co-accused No. 1 there is absolutely no material available on record against the appellant.

¶37

12. As noted hereinbefore, the sole material available against the appellant is the confession statement of the co-accused viz., accused No. 1, which undoubtedly cannot translate into admissible evidence at the stage of trial and against the appellant. When that be the position, how can it be said that a prima facie case is made out to make the appellant to stand the trial. There can be no doubt with respect to the position that standing the trial is an ordeal and, therefore, in a case where there is no material at all which could be translated into evidence at the trial stage it would be a miscarriage of justice to make the person concerned to stand the trial .”

¶38

(Emphasis supplied)

¶39

14. Even reference to and reliance of learned APP upon Section 30 of the Evidence Act does not help the prosecution. A careful reading of Section 30 shows that even as per Section 30, only legally admissible confession of the coaccused is relevant and admissible against the accused, because the condition precedent for making the confessional statement of the co-accused relevant against accused is that there should be not only a joint trial of the accused along with the coaccused, even the confessional statement should be such which could be proved in the trial. Needless to say that inadmissible confession cannot be proved during the trial. As such, confession as referred to in Section 30 of the Evidence Act means only admissible confession and not such confession

¶40

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.32755 of 2025(4) dt.04-09-2025 7/8

¶41

which is hit by Section 25 of the Evidence Act.

¶42

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I

¶43

find that the prosecution case against the petitioner is based only on inadmissible material which could not be translated into evidence against the accused/petitioner during his trial. Hence, it would be travesty of justice to curtail the liberty of the accused/petitioner under such facts and circumstances.

¶44

Accordingly, this petition is allowed, directing the petitioner, above-named, to be enlarged on bail, in the event of his arrest or surrender before the court below within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt / production of a copy of this order, on his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 10,000 /- (Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned concerned Court below, in connection with Kasba P.S. Case No. 52 of 2024, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 482 (2) of the B.N.S.S., 2023 and on the following conditions:

¶45

(i) In case, it is brought to the notice of the court below that the petitioner has any criminal antecedents, learned court below shall cancel the bail bonds of the petitioner after hearing him and getting satisfied that the petitioner has concealed his criminal antecedents despite his knowledge of the

¶46

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.32755 of 2025(4) dt.04-09-2025 8/8

¶47

same.

¶48

(ii) In case, it is brought to the notice of the court below that statement regarding previous bail petition is wrong, learned court below shall cancel the bail bonds of the petitioner.

¶49

(Jitendra Kumar, J.)

¶50

Chandan/-

¶51

U T

Sonu @ Sonu Kumar Yadav v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sonu @ Sonu Kumar Yadav v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Lallan Ram @ Lallan Ray Vs The State of Bihar

Santosh Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Laxmi Narayan Pandey Vs The State of Bihar

Dharamveer @ Dharmveer Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Neeraj Poddar @ Neeraj Kumar @ Niraj Poddar Vs The State of Bihar

Arun Kumar Vs The State of Bihar