Patna High Court

Puja DeviversusThe State of Bihar

Decided: 15 January 2026
Disposal: BAIL GRANTED
Bench: JITENDRA KUMAR

Holding

A confessional statement of a co‑accused recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act is inadmissible under Section 25 of the Evidence Act and cannot form the basis for denying bail when no other admissible evidence exists.

Summary

The petitioner, Puja Devi, sought regular bail in an NDNDPS case where 356 grams of contraband was recovered from a co‑accused, Aman Kumar, who alleged that the petitioner and her husband had instructed him. The prosecution’s case rested solely on Aman Kumar’s confessional statement, with no contraband recovered from the petitioner and no other admissible evidence. The petitioner’s counsel argued that a confessional statement recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act is inadmissible under Section 25 of the Evidence Act and cannot be used to deny bail. Citing Supreme Court precedents (Tofan Singh, Najmunisha, Dipakbhai J. Patel, Karan Talwar) and the principle that only material translatable into evidence may support a charge, the court held that the prosecution’s material was inadmissible. Consequently, the court granted bail on condition of sureties and compliance with stipulated conditions.

Issues considered

Whether a confessional statement of a co‑accused recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act can be used as material to deny bail.
Whether the prosecution has sufficient admissible evidence to justify denial of bail under the NDPS Act.
Whether the petitioner is entitled to regular bail in the absence of any admissible material against her.

Legislation cited

Indian Evidence Act, 1872 — s. 25, 30
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985 — s. 21(C), 25, 29, 41, 42, 53, 67, 80(C)

Subjects

NDPS Act
regular bail
confessional statement
admissibility
Evidence Act
Section 25
Section 67
criminal procedure

Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.91803 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-766 Year-2024 Thana- PURNEA SADAR District- Purnia
======================================================
Puja Devi, W/o Chotu Ram, Resident of - Katthalpatti, P.S - Sadar, District –
Purnea.
... ... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner : Mr. N.K. Agrawal, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Bidhu Ranjan, Advocate
Mr. Sanoj Kumar Choudhary, Advocate
Mr. Kumar Rajdeep, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Shailendra Kumar Singh, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA KUMAR
ORAL ORDER

2 15-01-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

APP for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with

Sadar P.S. Case No.766 of 2024 (Suppl. Spepcial) (N.D.P.S.

Act) Case No. 63 of 2025, CIS No. 237 of 2025, registered for

the offences punishable under Sections 80( C ), 21 (C ), 25 and

29 of the N.D.P.S. Act.

3. As per allegation, 356 grams of smack/brown sugar

has been recovered from the co-accused, Aman Kumar, @

Maklu, which was kept in a lunch box. As per the confessional

statement of the co-accused, Aman Kumar, he was bringing the

contraband on the instruction of the Petitioner and the co-

accused Chotu Ram. It was also confessed that the Petitioner

and her husband were also involved in the illegal trade of the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.91803 of 2025(2) dt.15-01-2026
2/6

contraband.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this

case. He also submits that the name of the Petitioner has

transpired in the alleged offence only in the confessional

statement of the co-accused, Aman Kumar @ Maklu to the

police, which has no evidentiary value, nor can it be converted

into legal evidence during trial and there is no recovery,

whatsoever, of any contraband from the possession of the

Petitioner. As such, there is no material on record to curtail the

liberty of the Petitioner. He also refers to and relies upon the

order dated. 17.09.2025, in Firoz Alam Vs. State of Bihar,

wherein this Court has held as follows:

“10. Here it would be pertinent 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. Here it has
been explained that the powers conferred on the
empowered officers under Section 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 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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.91803 of 2025(2) dt.15-01-2026
3/6

be taken into account in order to convict an accused under
the NDPS Act.
11. In recent judgment 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.
12. Here it would be also pertinent 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
evidence during the trial. The relevant part of the
judgment reads as follows:
"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."

(Emphasis supplied)

13. Similar view has been expressed by
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Karan Talwar Vs. The State
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.91803 of 2025(2) dt.15-01-2026
4/6

of Tamilnadu (2024) SCC Online SC 3803, holding as
follows relying upon Dipakbhai J. Patel case (supra) :
“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
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.
………………………………………………………….
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.”
(Emphasis supplied)
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 co-accused 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 co-accused, 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 which is
hit by Section 25 of the Evidence Act.
15. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I
find that the prosecution case against the petitioner is
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.91803 of 2025(2) dt.15-01-2026
5/6

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.”

5. He further submits that the petitioner has been

languishing in jail since 17.09.2025.

6. It has also been stated in paragraph no. 3 of the bail

petition that the petitioner has no criminal antecedent.

7. It is also stated in paragraph no. 2 of the bail

petition that the petitioner has moved this Court earlier for

anticipatory bail which was rejected vide order dated

15.05.2025 passed in Cr. Misc. No.30582 of 2025.

8. However, learned APP for the State vehemently

opposes the prayer of the petitioner for bail.

9. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances,

particularly the fact that there is no admissible material against

the Petitioner, this application is allowed, directing the

petitioner, above-named, to be enlarged on bail 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 Sadar P.S. Case

No.766 of 2024 (Suppl. Spepcial) (N.D.P.S. Act) Case No. 63 of

2025, CIS No. 237 of 2025 on the following conditions:

(i) The petitioner will make himself available for
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.91803 of 2025(2) dt.15-01-2026
6/6

interrogation by a police officer/court as and when required.

(ii) The petitioner will undertake that

investigation/trial will not get hampered on account of his

absence or non-cooperation. He must be available to the police

or the court whenever his presence is required.

(iii) The petitioner shall not, directly or indirectly

make any inducement, threat or promise to any person

acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from

disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer.

(iv) 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

same.

(v) 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.

(Jitendra Kumar, J.)
Chandan/-
U T

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…