Wali Mohammed Vs. the State of Rajasthan

Wali Mohammed vs The State of Rajasthan

Type Court Judgment Court Rajasthan Decided Aug 19, 1993

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/760849

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

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/760849
Court: Rajasthan High Court
Judge: Rajendra Saxena, J.
Decided On: Aug 19, 1993
Case Number: S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application 1133 of 93
Subject: Criminal

Case Summary

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

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act 1950 - Section 3/27 and Criminal Procedure Code--Sec 439-Bail--No other evidence except confessional statement of accused before police--Not sufficient reasons to believe committing of offence--Not likely to commit offence while on bail--Held, confessional statement can...

Key legal issue: Criminal

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Wali Mohammed

Respondent

The State of Rajasthan

Legal References

Cases Referred: Khalid v. State
Reported In: 1993WLN(UC)75

Excerpt

.....can not be read against the co-accused person. there is no other evidence collected by the investigation officer against the present petitioner.;there do not exist valid & sufficient reasons/grounds to believe that the petitioner is guilty of the offence punishable under section 29 of the act and 3/27 of the arms act and that he is likely to commit such an offence while on bail.;i allow this petition and order that petitioner wali mohammed be released on bail.;bail granted - section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & juvenile justice (care and protection of children) rules, 2007, rule 12 & 98 & juvenile justice act, 1986, section 2(h): [altamas kabir & cyriac joseph, jj] determination as to juvenile - appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged occurrence - appellant was arrested on 30.11.1998 when the 1986 act was in force and under clause (h) of section 2 a juvenile was described to mean a child who had not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who had not attained the age of eighteen years - it is with the enactment of the juvenile justice act, 2000, that in section 2(k) a juvenile or child was defined to mean a child who had not completed eighteen years of a ge which was given prospective prospect - appellant was about sixteen years of age on the date of commission of the alleged offence and had not completed eighteen years of age when the juvenile justice act, 2000, came into force - juvenile act, of 2000 has been given retrospective effect by rule 12 of juvenile justice rule, 2007 - as such, accused has to be treated as juvenile under the said act. .....admissible in evidence as the same is hit by the provisions of section 25 of the evidence act. therefore, the alleged interrogation notes of co-accused amba lal and petitioner wali mohammed, are not admissible. more-over as has been held in khalid v. state 1989 cr. l.r. (raj.)567 a confessional statement of an accused can not be read against the co-accused person. there is no other evidence collected by the investigation officer against the present petitioner.6. mr. garg has submitted that there is no other evidence against the petitioner and that there is no ground to believe that in future the petitioner shall commit such an offence.7. therefore, keeping in view all the facts & circumstances of the case, i am of the opinion that there do not exist valid & sufficient reasons/grounds to believe that the petitioner is guilty of the offence punishable under section 29 of the act and section 3/27 of the arms act and that he is likely to commit such an offence while on bail8. the resultant of the above discussion is that i allow this petition and order that petitioner wali mohammed be released on bail, provided he executes his personal bond for an amount of rs. 20,000/- (rs. twenty thousand) and furnishes two sound and substantial sureties for an amount of rs. 10,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned special judge (n.d.p.s. act cases) (sessions judge), pratapgarh for his regular appearance before him in the session case pertaining to crime no. 226/93, p.s., nimbahera on each and every date of hearing and whenever ordered to do so.

Full Judgment

Rajendra Saxena, J.

1. Heard. Perused the case diary and as also the challan papers in extenso.

2. The S.H.O., Police Station, Nimbahera has filed a chargesheet against petitioner Wali Mohd, for the offences punishable under Section 29 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (in short the Act) read with Section 3/27 of the Arms Act. It is alleged that co-accused Amba Lal, who was carrying 361.5 Kg. opium in a jeep and that when he was intercepted by the police ded not stop and was apprehended after encounter, In his interrogation not presumably recorded under Section 67 of the Act by the S.H.O., Police Station, Nimbahera, he disclosed that he had purchased one carbine 9 mm from Petitioner Wali Mohammed some 5 years ago and that he used to purchase cartridges thereof from him. In the interrogation note of petitioner Wali Mohammed., it has also been disclosed that had sold The carbine to Amba Lal in lieu of opium.

3. The learned Public Prosecutor has specifically stated that there is no other evidence against the petitioner except the aforementioned two interrogation notes.

4. I have, given my careful consideration to the rival contentions raised before me.

5. Keeping in view the law laid down in the case of Raj Kumar Karwal v. U.O.I. and Ors., 1990(1) SCC (Cri.)-330 take to this effect that any disclosure/ confessional statement made before the police officer under Section 67 of the Act is not admissible in evidence as the same is hit by the provisions of Section 25 of the Evidence Act. Therefore, the alleged interrogation notes of co-accused Amba Lal and petitioner Wali Mohammed, are not admissible. More-over as has been held in Khalid v. State 1989 Cr. L.R. (Raj.)567 a confessional statement of an accused can not be read against the co-accused person. There is no other evidence collected by the Investigation Officer against the present petitioner.

6. Mr. Garg has submitted that there is no other evidence against the petitioner and that there is no ground to believe that in future the petitioner shall commit such an offence.

7. Therefore, Keeping in view all the facts & circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that there do not exist valid & sufficient reasons/grounds to believe that the petitioner is guilty of the offence punishable under Section 29 of the Act and Section 3/27 of the Arms Act and that he is likely to commit such an offence while on bail

8. The resultant of the above discussion is that I allow this petition and order that petitioner Wali Mohammed be released on bail, provided he executes his personal bond for an amount of Rs. 20,000/- (Rs. twenty thousand) and furnishes two sound and substantial sureties for an amount of Rs. 10,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned Special Judge (N.D.P.S. Act Cases) (Sessions Judge), Pratapgarh for his regular appearance before him in the session case pertaining to Crime No. 226/93, P.S., Nimbahera on each and every date of hearing and whenever ordered to do so.

Same Court & Year Rajasthan · 1993 Same Parties Wali Mohammed vs The State of Rajasthan Same Subject Criminal Same Judge Rajendra Saxena, J.

Criminal