9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (2) TMI 382X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Romesh Chandra Mehta Vs State of West Bengal [1968 (10) TMI 50 - SUPREME COURT] that the custom officers are not the police officers and the statement recorded under section 108 of the Act,1962, is admissible in evidence, though there seems to be no quarrel regarding the same, whereas the further issue is that can the statement of an accused recorded under section 108 of the Act,1962, blindly be accepted without any corroboration of other evidences? Infact, the admissibility of an evidence is one aspect of the matter and the conviction can lead only on the basis of the confessional statement recorded under section 108 of the Act,1962 is the other aspect of the matter and the answer would be no. This court is of the opinion that the confessional statement of an accused recorded under section 108 of the Act, 1962, cannot blindly be accepted unless it is corroborated by any independent evidence/material as the same would not lead to conviction. The examination of confessional statement of the accused is essentially required so as to find out that the same is not taken under coercion or under extraneous influences. The trial ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ring and Shashank Singh, were detained and from personal search of Tanveer Mustafa, 3 gold bullions wrapped in a black coloured tissue paper, was recovered and nothing was recovered from the other two co-accused persons. The third search and seizure was also done at 10.30 P.M. at Crystal Apartment, wherein Ratnesh Pandey and Deepu Chaudhary were detained and some articles were recovered and thus, on 09-08-2024, the applicant and the other co-accused persons were arrested. 4. Contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the instant matter due to ulterior motive. He argued that after the arrest of the applicant and other co-accused persons on 09-08-2024, the investigation proceeded and the same was concluded and ultimately, the complaint has been filed on 07-10-2024. He submits that it is important to point out that D.R.I. officials requested for police remand of custodial interrogation of the accused persons, which was rejected by the trial court vide order dated 04-09-2024. He also submits that the complaint has been filed on 07-10-2024 and now, no custodial interrogation is required. He submits that the pleth ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... trial proceedings. Therefore, submission is that the applicant may be enlarged on bail. 9. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the D.R.I. has vehemently opposed the contentions abovesaid and argued that the applicant was detained and arrested while the D.R.I. officials intercepted the CCS Airport, Lucknow and the Panchnama/recovery proceedings were duly completed. He submits that as per the call details record, the present applicantaccused had 112 times conversations with co-accused, Ratnesh Pandey and 23 times with Avinash in between 01-07-2024 to 07-08-2024 and 17 telephonic communications on the day of incident, which indicates that there was a close coordination and active involvement of the applicant in smuggling of the prohibited gold. He further argued that the forensic examination of the mobile phone of the applicant-accused is also connects him with the offence and there is a strong evidence with respect to coordination in between applicant-accused and them. In addition to it, he submits that the statement of the applicantaccused recorded under section 108 of the Act,1962, is enough to establish that the applicant has committed offence and the same is strong evidenc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... police officers and the statement recorded under section 108 of the Act,1962, is admissible in evidence, though there seems to be no quarrel regarding the same, whereas the further issue is that can the statement of an accused recorded under section 108 of the Act,1962, blindly be accepted without any corroboration of other evidences ? Infact, the admissibility of an evidence is one aspect of the matter and the conviction can lead only on the basis of the confessional statement recorded under section 108 of the Act,1962 is the other aspect of the matter and the answer would be no. 15. This issue is dealt with in the case of Union of India Vs. Kisan Ratan Singh and others by the Hon'ble High Court at Bombay(Criminal Appeal No 621 of 2001 decided on 7th January, 2020), vide Judgment and order dated 07-01-2022. Paragraph no. 9 of the Judgment is quoted hereinunder :- "9. Various Courts have kept all these things in mind and come to a conclusion that in the absence of any corroboration by an independent and reliable witness, a statement recorded under Section 108 in isolation could not be relied upon. For this, I find support in State of Maharashtra V/s. Harshad Vaherbhai P ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntariness of the nature of the statement of the accused. 17. I have also noticed the fact that no gold is recovered from the possession of the applicant and the D.R.I. officials have failed to strongly corroborate the story, though, the investigation is completed and the complaint has also been instituted, therefore, there seems no possibility that the applicant would tamper the evidences or would threaten the witnesses. Further the custodial interrogation also seems to be unreasonable and uncalled for at this stage as no plausible argument/reasons are accorded. 18. Further whether the alleged smuggled gold is under the prohibited category of gold or the restricted gold, is also one of the question, which is to be looked into by the trial court at the subsequent stage. 19. It has also been noticed that the applicant has a case criminal history, which has been explained in paragraph 38 of the bail application and he is languishing in jail since 09-08-2024 coupled with the fact that he has undertaken that if he is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty of the same and would cooperate in the trial proceedings. 20. Considering the submissions of learned counsel of both sides, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
