Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Vikas Kumar @ Vikas Sharma Vs. Dri

Vikas Kumar @ Vikas Sharma vs Dri

Disposition Petition dismissed Court Delhi Decided Mar 12, 2003
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/691688

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Delhi High Court
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
Crl. M.M. 3845 of 2002
Subject
Criminal
Disposition
Petition dismissed

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 439--Bail--Offence under Sections 21, 23, 28 and 29, NDPS Act--Confessional statements by accused before the officer of NCB or DRI--Admissibility of such statements--Confessional statements allegedly retracted later on--Such confessional statements are not hit by Sections 25 a...

Key legal issue
Criminal
Outcome / disposition
Petition dismissed
Acts & sections
Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973 - Sections 439; Evidence Act, 1872 - Sections 25 and 26; Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Sections 21, 23, 28 and 29

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Vikas Kumar @ Vikas Sharma

Advocate R.D. Mehra, Adv

Respondent

Dri

Advocate Satish Aggarwala and ; Yash Pal Sharma, Advs.

Legal References

Acts
Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973 - Sections 439; Evidence Act, 1872 - Sections 25 and 26; Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Sections 21, 23, 28 and 29
Cases Referred
(Firozuddin Basheeruddin and Ors. v. State of Kerala
Reported In
2003(2)Crimes426; 2003(68)DRJ79; 2003(1)JCC536

Excerpt

criminal procedure code, 1973 - section 439--bail--offence under sections 21, 23, 28 and 29, ndps act--confessional statements by accused before the officer of ncb or dri--admissibility of such statements--confessional statements allegedly retracted later on--such confessional statements are not hit by sections 25 and 26 of evidence act--such statements are admissible in evidence against the persons making it--bail rejected--evidence act, 1872, sections 25, 26--narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances act, 1985, sections 21, 23, 28, 29. - o.p. dwivedi, j.1. petitioner seeks bail in a case under sections 21, 23, 28 and 29 of the narcotics drugs and psychotropte substances act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the ndps act) 4.740 kgms of heroine was seized from the co-accused satpal juneja on 9th october, 2001 at the igi airport. the same was concealed in the specially made cavities in the ten air of ladies sandals which were found in part of his luggage. he was to travel from new delhi to jewis. in the statement recorded under section 67 of the ndps act co-accused satpal juneja named the petitioner namely vikas kumar is the person who supplied the said contraband to him. the statement of the petitioner under section 67 of the ndps act was recorded on 8th & 9th march, 2002 wherein he admitted his involvement in the said deal. such confessional statements made before the officers of ncb or dpi are not hit by sections 25 and 26 of the evidence act. such officers are not police officers. thereforee, statement made before them are admissible in evidence against the persons making it. (firozuddin basheeruddin and ors. v. state of kerala, : 2001 crilj4215 ). these confessional statements were allegedly retracted later on. at this stage it is not open to this court to assess the probative value of these retracted confessions. suffice it to say that such statements are admissible in evidence and if believed, can form the basis of the conviction. it cannot be said at this stage that accused is not guilty of such offences or he is not likely to be commit any such of fence. thereforee, keeping in view the provisions of the section 37 of the ndps act, bail cannot be granted. accordingly, petition for bail is rejected.

Full Judgment

O.P. Dwivedi, J.

1. Petitioner seeks bail in a case under Sections 21, 23, 28 and 29 of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropte Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the NDPS Act) 4.740 Kgms of heroine was seized from the co-accused Satpal Juneja on 9th October, 2001 at the IGI airport. The same was concealed in the specially made cavities in the ten air of ladies sandals which were found in part of his luggage. He was to travel from New Delhi to Jewis. In the statement recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act co-accused Satpal Juneja named the petitioner namely Vikas Kumar is the person who supplied the said contraband to him. The statement of the petitioner under Section 67 of the NDPS Act was recorded on 8th & 9th March, 2002 wherein he admitted his involvement In the said deal. Such confessional statements made before the officers of NCB or DPI are not hit by Sections 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act. Such officers are not police officers. thereforee, statement made before them are admissible in evidence against the persons making it. (Firozuddin Basheeruddin and Ors. v. State of Kerala, : 2001 CriLJ4215 ). These confessional statements were allegedly retracted later on. At this stage it is not open to this Court to assess the probative value of these retracted confessions. Suffice it to say that such statements are admissible in evidence and if believed, can form the basis of the conviction. It cannot be said at this stage that accused is not guilty of such offences or he is not likely to be commit any such of fence. thereforee, keeping in view the provisions of the Section 37 of the NDPS Act, bail cannot be granted. Accordingly, petition for bail is rejected.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial