Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Satyanarayan Alias Sattu vs Union Of India on 10 September, 2025
[2025:RJ-JD:39097]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 7550/2025
Rakesh Kumar S/o Vinod Kumar, Aged About 28 Years, Resident
of Regar Mohalla Village Khachrol Police Station Mandalgarh
District Bhilwara Rajasthan. (At Present Lodged In District Jail
Bhilwara)
----Petitioner
Versus
The Union of India
----Respondent
Connected With
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 5882/2025
Satyanarayan Alias Sattu S/o Udailal, Aged About 33 Years, R/o
Near Charbhuja Temple Village Raysinghpura Post. Khachrol
Tehsil/P.S. Mandalgarh Dist. Bhilwara Rajasthan (At Present
Incarcerted In Dist. Jail Bhilwara)
----Petitioner
Versus
Union of India, through NCB
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Deepak Menaria
Mr. Vinod Kumar Sharma
For Respondent(s) : Mr. M.R. Pareek, Special PP for NCB
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR SHARMA
Order Order Reserved on : 27/08/2025 Order Pronounced on : 10/09/2025 The present bail applications have been preferred by the petitioners under Section 483 B.N.S.S. in connection with FIR No.VIII(IO)10/NCB/JZU/2022 registered at Police Station NCB, (Uploaded on 10/09/2025 at 04:19:27 PM) (Downloaded on 10/09/2025 at 09:44:55 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:39097] (2 of 10) [CRLMB-7550/2025] Jodhpur for the offences punishable under Sections 8/29 of the NDPS Act.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that no contraband has been recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioners. The only allegation against the petitioners is of money transaction said to be made with the co-accused, which by itself does not establish conscious possession, transportation, or dealing with narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances. It is further urged that the petitioners have been implicated on the basis of the disclosure statement of the co-accused and such a disclosure statement, standing alone, is not admissible in evidence.
3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner also contended that the entire case of the prosecution is primarily founded upon the so-called confessional statement alleged to have been recorded by the officers of the Central Bureau of Narcotics.
4. Learned counsel has also drawn attention of this Court to the fact that similarly situated co-accused Baldev Singh Bishnoi, Anil Suthar and Jagdish have already been enlarged on bail by the respective co-ordinate Benches of this Court. It is contended that the present petitioners, against whom no recovery has been effected and their implication rests solely on the basis of the information of the co-accused, stands on a better footing, and therefore deserves parity in the matter of bail.
5. Lastly, learned counsel submitted that charge-sheet has already been filed in the matter. The accused-petitioners are in judicial custody and the trial of the case will take long time.
(Uploaded on 10/09/2025 at 04:19:27 PM) (Downloaded on 10/09/2025 at 09:44:55 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:39097] (3 of 10) [CRLMB-7550/2025] Therefore, it is prayed that the accused-petitioners may be enlarged on bail.
6. Controverting the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Public Prosecutor vehemently submits that the petitioners are involved in financial transactions and the money trail shows their nexus with the co-accused from whom contraband was recovered. Learned Public Prosecutor further alleges that the petitioners are involved in procurement and distribution of narcotic substances. It is further alleged that a substantial monetary transaction took place between the petitioner and the co-accused, which is evidenced through bank records and the call record.
7. I have considered the rival submissions advanced at the Bar and scanned through the entire material available on record.
8. The prosecution case alleges that the petitioners are involved in trading and circulation of narcotics. In pursuance of the Notice issued by the Prosecution under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, petitioners Rakesh Kumar and Satyanarayan @ Sattu appeared before the Investigating Officer and voluntarily gave their statements, extract of which read thus:
Rakesh Kumar -
As per the prosecution, the accused Rakesh Kumar Verma S/o Vinod Verma admitted that he had been involved in smuggling poppy husk since 2020 along with co-accused Murali Sharma, Satyanarayan Jat @ Sattu, and Ladu Rebari. He further disclosed that on 09.04.2022 and 14.04.2022, he facilitated the procurement and loading of 160 kg and 155 kg of poppy husk respectively for co-accused Anil Sain, for which (Uploaded on 10/09/2025 at 04:19:27 PM) (Downloaded on 10/09/2025 at 09:44:55 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:39097] (4 of 10) [CRLMB-7550/2025] he received payment in cash and online. He also admitted that approximately 360 kg of poppy husk was purchased jointly by him and his associates from Rameshwar Lal Dhakad and sold at a profit, and the amount transferred by Anil Sain was withdrawn and distributed among them. He identified the co-accused and admitted to escorting the consignment up to Nandrai village. Based on these admissions, he was arrested on 16.10.2024 under Sections 8, 15, and 29 of the NDPS Act, and during NCB custody, he assisted in the identification of the illegal poppy husk dumping and filling site in Khacharol village.
Satyanarayan Jat @ Sattu -
That during the course of investigation, a notice under Section 67 of the NDPS Act was served upon accused Satyanarayan Jat @ Sattu, who in his voluntary statement dated 18.10.2024, admitted to involvement in smuggling poppy husk since 2021 along with associates Rakesh Verma, Murali Sharma, and Ladu Rebari. He disclosed that on 09.04.2022, 160 kg of poppy husk was procured from Rameshwar Lal Dhakad and transported in a WagonR (RJ25 CA2711), with payment made in cash and partly via PhonePe. Further, on 14.04.2022, 350 kg of poppy husk was brought in two rounds, concealed near Satti Mata Mandir, Khacharol, and later handed over to Anil Kumar Sen and others for transportation.
9. The Apex Court had an occasion to consider the question in the case of Kanhaiyalal Vs. Union of India reported in AIR 2008 SC 1044 that "Whether the confessions made before (Uploaded on 10/09/2025 at 04:19:27 PM) (Downloaded on 10/09/2025 at 09:44:55 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:39097] (5 of 10) [CRLMB-7550/2025] the officers of the Central Bureau of Narcotics are admissible in evidence"? The Apex Court answered the question in the affirmative and held that officers of the Central Bureau of Narcotics are not police officers within the meaning of Section 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act and, hence, confessions made before them are admissible in evidence, observing as under:
"Since it has been held by this Court that an officer for the purposes of Section 67 of the NDPS Act read with Section 42 thereof, is not a police officer, the bar under Sections 24 and 27 of the Evidence Act cannot be attracted and the statement made by a person directed to appear before the officer concerned may be relied upon as a confessional statement against such person. Since a conviction can be maintained solely on the basis of a confession made under Section 67 of the NDPS Act., we see no reason to interfere with the conclusion of the High Court convicting the appellant."
10. The Apex Court in the case of Ram Singh vs. Central Bureau of Narcotics reported in AIR 2011 SC 2490 while affirming the conclusion drawn in the case of Kanhaiyalal (supra) made the following observations:
"8. In order to answer these questions it is expedient to examine the scheme of the Act. Section 42 of the Act confers on specified categories of officers power of entry, search, seizure and arrest without warrant or authorization. Section 43 thereof confers the power of seizure and arrest. Section 51 of the Act, inter alia, provides application of the (Uploaded on 10/09/2025 at 04:19:27 PM) (Downloaded on 10/09/2025 at 09:44:55 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:39097] (6 of 10) [CRLMB-7550/2025] provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure to all warrants issued and arrests, searches and seizures made under the Act in so far as they are not inconsistent with its provisions. Power to call for information to the officers specified is conferred by Section 67 of the Act and the confessions in the present case have been recorded in exercise of the said power. Section 25 of the Evidence Act makes confessional statement given by an accused before police officers inadmissible in evidence which cannot be brought on record by the prosecution to obtain conviction. Further Section 26 of the Evidence Act in no uncertain terms provides that the confession made while in custody of police officer cannot be proved against accused to support the criminal charge. Therefore, what needs to be considered is as to whether the officers of the Central Bureau of Narcotics, who had recorded the confessions, are police officers within the meaning of Section 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act. True it is that Section 53 of the Act confers powers to the Central Government to invest officers of the specified categories, the powers of an officer-in- charge of police station but that itself, in our opinion, shall not make them the police officers within the meaning of Section 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act. The officers with whom lie the powers of search, seizure and investigation under the Act have not been conferred with the power to submit report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Such officer is required to lay complaint in the Court of Special Judge for prosecuting an accused. In our opinion the power to submit report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is necessary to make the (Uploaded on 10/09/2025 at 04:19:27 PM) (Downloaded on 10/09/2025 at 09:44:55 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:39097] (7 of 10) [CRLMB-7550/2025] officers of the Central Bureau of Narcotics police officers within the meaning of Section 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act. The important attribute of Police Officer is not only to investigate but also to launch prosecution by filing a report or charge- sheet. In view of the pronouncement of this Court in the case of Raj Kumar Karwal vs. Union of India and others, 1990 (2) SCC 409, this question does not need much discussion. This was a case under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act itself and on review of large number of authorities, this Court came to the following conclusion in paragraph 22 of the judgment which reads as follows:
".........The important attribute of police power is not only the power to investigate into the commission of cognizable offence but also the power to prosecute the offender by filing a report or a charge- sheet under Section 173 of the Code. That is why this Court has since the decision in Badku Joti Savant v. State of Mysore AIR 1966 SC 1746, accepted the ratio that unless an officer is invested under any special law with the powers of investigation under the Code, including the power to submit a report under Section 173, he cannot be described to be a `police officer' under Section 25, Evidence Act........."
9. This Court had the occasion to consider this question further in the case of Kanhaiyalal vs. Union of India, 2008 (4) SCC 668, wherein it has been held as follows:
"44. In addition to the above, in Raj Kumar Karwal v. Union of India this Court held that officers of the Department of Revenue Intelligence who have been vested with powers of an officer in charge of a police station under Section 53 of the NDPS Act, 1985, are not "police officers" within the (Uploaded on 10/09/2025 at 04:19:27 PM) (Downloaded on 10/09/2025 at 09:44:55 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:39097] (8 of 10) [CRLMB-7550/2025] meaning of Section 25 of the Evidence Act.
Therefore, a confessional statement recorded by such officer in the course of investigation of a person accused of an offence under the Act is admissible in evidence against him. It was also held that power conferred on officers under the NDPS Act in relation to arrest, search and seizure were similar to powers vested on officers under the Customs Act. Nothing new has been submitted which can persuade us to take a different view.
45. Considering the provisions of Section 67 of the NDPS Act and the views expressed by this Court in Raj Kumar Karwal case with which we agree, that an officer vested with the powers of an officer in charge of a police station under Section 53 of the above Act is not a "police officer"
within the meaning of Section 25 of the Evidence Act, it is clear that a statement made under Section 67 of the NDPS Act is not the same as a statement made under Section 161 of the Code, unless made under threat or coercion. It is this vital difference, which allows a statement made under Section 67 of the NDPS Act to be used as a confession against the person making it and excludes it from the operation of Sections 24 to 27 of the Evidence Act."
10. From what has been observed above, the officers vested with the powers of investigation under the Act are not police officers and, therefore, the confessions recorded by such officers are admissible in evidence. Therefore, the question posed at the outset is answered in the affirmative and it is held that officers of the Central Bureau of Narcotics are not police officers within the meaning of Section 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act and, hence, confessions made before them are admissible in evidence."
11. Thus, the confessional statements of the petitioners voluntarily recorded by the Prosecution under Section 67 of the (Uploaded on 10/09/2025 at 04:19:27 PM) (Downloaded on 10/09/2025 at 09:44:55 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:39097] (9 of 10) [CRLMB-7550/2025] NDPS Act, at this stage, constitute material evidence and the same cannot be discarded outrightly, especially when the same are supported by corroborative evidence in the form of financial transactions, bank records and mobile communications with the co-accused.
12. So far as the argument of learned counsel for the petitioners that similarly situated co-accused have already been enlarged on bail is concerned, this Court is of the opinion that though the recovery of contraband was made from the conscious possession of the co-accused who have been enlarged on bail, however, the role attributed to the present petitioners, is qualitatively distinct. The allegations against the present petitioners are that they are involved in trading and circulation of narcotics, thus, such allegations cannot be equated with mere possession. In the instant case, the alleged role of the petitioners in trading and circulating narcotics makes the case distinct from that of the co- accused who have been granted bail. Moreover, the co-accused were granted bail considering their custodial period of approximately two and a half years, whereas the present petitioners have been in custody for barely 11 months. Thus, the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is not tenable.
13. As regards the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the implication of the petitioners rests solely upon the disclosure statements of the co-accused, this Court is of the considered opinion that such argument, at this stage, cannot be a ground for grant of bail. The Prosecution has brought on record (Uploaded on 10/09/2025 at 04:19:27 PM) (Downloaded on 10/09/2025 at 09:44:55 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:39097] (10 of 10) [CRLMB-7550/2025] substantial material in the form of call detail records, financial transactions, and bank account statements, which prima facie corroborate the nexus between the petitioners and the co- accused. Therefore, the argument that the petitioners have been enroped only on the basis of the statements of the co-accused is not substainable.
14. The next contention advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the petitioners have been in judicial custody since October 2024. Pertinent to note that in a grave offence such as one under the NDPS Act hardly eleven months have elapsed since their arrest.
15. In view of the aforesaid discussion and considering the severity of the allegations and the role attributed to the present petitioners, this Court does not find any justifiable ground to enlarge the petitioners on bail.
16. Accordingly, the present bail applications are hereby dismissed.
(CHANDRA SHEKHAR SHARMA),J 65-66 Anil/-
(Uploaded on 10/09/2025 at 04:19:27 PM) (Downloaded on 10/09/2025 at 09:44:55 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)