Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

4. Mr. T.K. Tiwari & Mr. Maneesh Sharma, learned counsel for respective applicants would submit that applicants have not committed any crime as alleged against them. Alleged murder of Shubham Namdev was committed on 10.9.2018, police surprisingly arrested applicants on 1.4.2021 & 2.4.2021 respectively without there being any material connecting them in commission of aforementioned crime. Police recorded memorandum statement of applicants on respective date of their arrest. Applicants were arrested on the basis of report of Narco Analysis Test of applicants stated to have been conducted on 5.12.2019. Narco Analysis Test report is not an admissible piece of evidence, hence on that basis only it cannot be said that there is material connecting applicants with commission of aforementioned crime. In support of contention that Narco Analysis Test report is not an admissible piece of evidence, they place reliance upon decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Selvi vs. State of Karnataka Reported in (2010) 7 SCC 263.

They further submit that after receipt of report Narco Analysis test, police recorded statement of some witnesses in the month of January, 2021. These witnesses are planted witnesses and not eyewitness of incident because none of them came forward to make any statement during these three years. It is further submitted that deceased was man of lose character, he was having relationship with several girls, he and his father were also arrested on allegation against them of commission of offence under Section 376 of IPC. Hence, possibility that deceased might be having several enemies cannot be ruled out. Except Narco Test report, there is no other material to connect applicant with crime in question, hence, in view of decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Selvi (supra), applicants may be enlarged on regular bail.

5. Per contra, Mr. Dinesh Tiwari, learned Deputy Government Advocate for the State opposes submissions of learned counsel for respective applicants and submits that during course of investigation, police collected messages and details of mobile phones with whom deceased had conversation on the date of incident. Immediately after incident, statements of Virendra Kumar Namdev, relative of deceased, Ramendra Namdev, father of deceased, and others were recorded under Section 161 CrPC. Police based on material collected during course of investigation, interrogated applicants. Police gave notice to applicants and one another co-accused for undergoing Narco Analysis Test and after obtaining their consent, they were put to Narco Analysis Test. From the material collected during investigation, before putting them to Narco test, involvement of applicants in commission of aforementioned crime is prima facie appearing. He submits police recorded statements of Nikhil Sonwani, Sidar Das Vaishnav, Dileshwar Sahu, Bharti Belchandan, Madhur Kumar Meshram under Section 161 CrPC. Nikhil Sonwani and Madhur Kumar Meshram have stated in their statement that they saw deceased and applicants sitting in a car at the place of incident. Hence, there is prima facie material against applicants of their involvement in aforementioned crime.

6. Mr. Ranbir Singh Marhas, learned counsel for Complainant/ Objector would submit that police during course of investigation collected material and based upon material available in charge sheet, applicants were arrested. Material available in charge sheet prima facie shows involvement of applicants in commission of aforementioned crime. He also submits that report of Narco Analysis Test can be relied upon against applicants. Relying upon some paragraphs of judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Selvi (supra), he submits that applicants are not entitled to be enlarged on regular bail.