1

.

MASKED JUDGMENT by CaseOn: This document has been modified to redact sensitive

personal and financial identifiers pursuant to a Privacy Request. The non-essential

details of family members and financial accounts have been masked to prevent identity

theft and protect the privacy of private individuals.

Reserved on : 25.10.2025

Pronounced on : 08.01.2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 08

TH

DAY OF JANUARY, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA

CRIMINAL PETITION No.3473 OF 2024

BETWEEN:

JUNAID HUSSAIN HAVERI

Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

xXxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

xxXxxxxxx

xxXxxxxxx

xxXxxxxxxxxXxxxxxx

xxXxxxxxxxxXxxxxxx

Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

xxxxxxxxxxx

... PETITIONER

(BY MS. KEERTHI KRISHNA REDDY, ADVOCATE)

AND:

UNION OF INDIA

BY INTELLIGENCE OFFICER

2

.

MASKED JUDGMENT by CaseOn: This document has been modified to redact sensitive

personal and financial identifiers pursuant to a Privacy Request. The non-essential

details of family members and financial accounts have been masked to prevent identity

theft and protect the privacy of private individuals.

NARCOTICS CONTROL BUREAU

BENGALURU ZONAL UNIT

BENGALURU – 560 093.

... RESPONDENT

(BY SRI K.ARVIND KAMATH, ADDL. SOLICITOR GENERAL A/W.,

SMT. SHRIDEVI M.BHOSLE, CGC)

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF

CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE COMPLAINT / CHARGE SHEET IN

SPL.C.C.NO.2932/2023 (NCB CR.NO.48/1/24/2023/BZU) ON THE

FILE OF 33

RD

ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND

SPECIAL JUDGE (NDPS) BENGALURU FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCE

P/U/S 8(c) READ WITH SECTION 22(c), 23(c), 27, 27A, 28 AND 29

OF NDPS ACT IN RESPECT OF THE PETITIONER AND PASS ANY

OTHER SUCH ORDER AS DEEM FIT.

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND

RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 25.10.2025, COMING ON FOR

PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

CAV ORDER

The petitioner/accused No.3 is before this Court calling in

question proceedings in Special C.C.No.2932 of 2023, pending

before the 33

rd

Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special

Judge (NDPS), Bengaluru, registered for offences punishable under

Sections 22(c), 23(c), 27, 27A, 28 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and

3

.

MASKED JUDGMENT by CaseOn: This document has been modified to redact sensitive

personal and financial identifiers pursuant to a Privacy Request. The non-essential

details of family members and financial accounts have been masked to prevent identity

theft and protect the privacy of private individuals.

Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the

Act’ for short).

2. Heard Ms. Keerthi Krishna Reddy, learned counsel

appearing for the petitioner and Sri K.Arvind Kamath, learned

Additional Solicitor General along with Smt. Shridevi M. Bhosle,

learned Central Government Counsel appearing for the respondent.

3. Facts, in brief, germane are as follows: -

A complaint comes to be registered by the respondent before

the Special Judge under Section 36A of the Act alleging offences

punishable as afore-quoted. It is alleged that pursuant to a credible

information received by the Intelligence Officer of Narcotics Control

Bureau (‘NCB’), that one speed post parcel sent from Coimbatore

destined to Marathalli Colony Sub-Post Office was suspected to be

containing drug concealment and would reach Marathalli Sub-Post

Office on 20-06-2023. The said information was taken down in

Form, NCB-I. The team reached the Sub-Post Office on 20-06-

2023, at around 14.30 hours and on the written request, the Post

Master handed over the parcel to the Investigating Officer. It was

4

.

MASKED JUDGMENT by CaseOn: This document has been modified to redact sensitive

personal and financial identifiers pursuant to a Privacy Request. The non-essential

details of family members and financial accounts have been masked to prevent identity

theft and protect the privacy of private individuals.

seen that the shipper address was mentioned as Global Wisdom

Centre and the receiver address was mentioned as the name of the

petitioner. Further, on opening the same, it was found that there

were four blank pages; one folded blank page; on opening of the

blank page, a plastic pouch was found, which was containing silver

foil, containing 50 blot papers in a printed pattern, which is believed

to be LSD tablets and were weighed and the net weight of which

came to 0.560 gms. This led to drawing of a panchanama as per

law and the Investigating Officer requested the Post Master to

deliver a dummy parcel bearing the same number at the assignee

address. The Post Master is said to have delivered a dummy parcel

and a person receives the parcel after affixing his signature. The

Investigating Officer intercepts the person and upon inquiry, the

name of the petitioner is revealed by the said person and summons

was issued to the petitioner under Section 67(2) of the Act.

3.1. On interrogation, it was revealed that his friend Abhay

Kumar, accused No.2 who was his previous roommate, who has

now moved to IIM-B Hostel, telephonically informed that a parcel

which was addressed in the name of the petitioner will be delivered

5

.

MASKED JUDGMENT by CaseOn: This document has been modified to redact sensitive

personal and financial identifiers pursuant to a Privacy Request. The non-essential

details of family members and financial accounts have been masked to prevent identity

theft and protect the privacy of private individuals.

and requested the same to be accepted and later to hand it over to

accused No.2. This is the alleged modus operandi. Therefore, one

factor becomes clear that the name of the petitioner is drawn by

the statement of the person whom the Investigating Officer

apprehended who would be accused No.1. Accused No.1 revealed

that accused No.2, the present petitioner had arranged this

to be delivered to accused No.3. Therefore, the offences

sprang. On 22.06.2023, the petitioner was taken into custody on

drawing up an arrest memo. The NCB officials after conduct of

investigation, file a charge sheet against the accused. After receipt

of the charge sheet, the concerned Court takes cognizance of the

offences as afore-quoted on 16-12-2023. It is this order of taking

cognizance that is presently challenged in the subject petition.

4. The learned counsel Ms. Keerthi Krishna Reddy appearing

for the petitioner would vehemently contend that accused No.3, the

petitioner did not know the contents of the parcel. The voluntary

statement of accused No.2 would show that accused No.3 was only

requested by accused No.2 to collect the parcel and hand it over to

him. The transaction details would show that the petitioner has

6

.

MASKED JUDGMENT by CaseOn: This document has been modified to redact sensitive

personal and financial identifiers pursuant to a Privacy Request. The non-essential

details of family members and financial accounts have been masked to prevent identity

theft and protect the privacy of private individuals.

neither transferred money nor received money. The learned counsel

would submit that the procedure stipulated under Sections 50-A

and 2(vii)(b) of the Act has not been followed, which would vitiate

the proceedings instituted against the petitioner. Accused No.3, the

petitioner herein, is identified as accused only due to controlled

delivery procedure. There is no incriminating material/evidence

against the petitioner. The entire case against the petitioner rests

on his confession statement. Except the confession statement,

there is nothing against the petitioner. Accused Nos.1 and 2 had

booked and purchased the alleged drugs from accused Nos.4 and 5.

The payment was made by them. The petitioner has only received

the parcel upon the request of accused No.2. The petitioner has not

booked or purchased the drugs. The complainant includes the name

of the petitioner as he has received the parcel. There is no evidence

to connect the petitioner to the crime. She would submit that if the

very impugned proceedings against accused No.2 is quashed by this

Court in the case of ABHAY KUMAR VS. UNION OF INDIA in

Crl.P.No.917/2024, disposed on 10.01.2025, then

petitioner/accused No.3 is on a better footing.

7

.

MASKED JUDGMENT by CaseOn: This document has been modified to redact sensitive

personal and financial identifiers pursuant to a Privacy Request. The non-essential

details of family members and financial accounts have been masked to prevent identity

theft and protect the privacy of private individuals.

5. Per contra, the learned Additional Solicitor General

Sri K.Arvind Kamath, appearing for the respondent - NCB at the

outset submits that this Court must not follow the order that led to

quashing of proceedings against accused No.2. It is his submission

that if controlled delivery is vitiated on account of not following

procedure under Section 50-A of the Act, the controlled delivery will

go away but not the other evidence that is collected against the

accused. This Court has erred in holding that the controlled

delivery would vitiate the procedure itself in ABHAY KUMAR’s case

supra. It is his submission that the procedural irregularity does not

vitiate prosecution unless prejudice is shown. The learned

Additional Solicitor General would submit that controlled delivery

procedure is a tool of investigation, not the investigation itself for it

to be quashed. He would seek to place reliance upon an order

passed by the High Court of Delhi in the case of VAIBHAV YADAV

v. NCB

1

, concerning bail application, wherein, it is held that Section

50-A of the Act is procedural and directory and not mandatory. He

would further contend that WhatsApp conversation between the

accused person containing incriminating material against the

1

Bail Application No.1362/2024

8

.

MASKED JUDGMENT by CaseOn: This document has been modified to redact sensitive

personal and financial identifiers pursuant to a Privacy Request. The non-essential

details of family members and financial accounts have been masked to prevent identity

theft and protect the privacy of private individuals.

petitioner, when the petition was filed by accused No.2, the

proceedings were at the crime stage. But, now the investigation is

complete, FSL report has been prepared and on the ground of

parity, it cannot be accepted qua accused No.3, as further

proceedings were quashed in the case of accused No.2 solely on the

ground that the procedure under Section 50-A of the Act was not

complied with, which at all times was only directory.

6. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions

made by the respective learned counsel for the parties and have

perused the material on record.

7. At the outset, I deem it appropriate to paraphrase what

this Court has held in quashing the proceedings against accused

No.2 in ABHAY KUMAR’s case supra. The order reads as follows:

“8. The afore-narrated facts are a matter of record. A

complaint is registered on 20-06-2023. It is the case of the

complainant that he received an information that a parcel

containing suspected drugs would be received in Marathahalli

Colony Sub-Post Office, Bangalore. A team of NCB goes into the

post office, meets CW-5 Post Master, gives a request to hand

over the parcel and asks her to become an independent witness.

The complaint would further narrate that the Investigating

Officer on 20-06-2023 requests the Post Master for delivery of a

dummy parcel which is designated to be delivered to one Junaid

Hussain Haveri, accused No.3 and later the parcel to be

9

.

MASKED JUDGMENT by CaseOn: This document has been modified to redact sensitive

personal and financial identifiers pursuant to a Privacy Request. The non-essential

details of family members and financial accounts have been masked to prevent identity

theft and protect the privacy of private individuals.

delivered from Junaid Hussain Haveri to the petitioner. Since the

entire issue now revolves round Section 50A, I deem it

appropriate to notice Section 50A of the Act. It reads as follows:

“50-A. Power to undertake controlled

delivery.— The Director General of Narcotics Control

Bureau constituted under sub-section (3) of Section 4 or

any other officer authorised by him in this behalf, may,

notwithstanding anything contained in this Act,

undertake controlled delivery of any consignment to—

(a) any destination in India;

(b) a foreign country, in consultation with the

competent authority of such foreign country to which

consignment is destined, in such manner as may be

prescribed.”

Section 50A permits carrying out of controlled delivery by the

Director General of NCB or any other officer authorised by him

in this behalf. The authorisation to the officer must be under

Section 4 of the Act. Section 4 of the Act reads as follows:

“4. Central Government to take measures

for preventing and combating abuse of and illicit

traffic in narcotic drugs, etc.—(1) Subject to the

provisions of this Act, the Central Government shall

take all such measures as it deems necessary or

expedient for the purpose of preventing and combating

abuse of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances

and the illicit traffic therein and for ensuring their

medical and scientific use.

(2) In particular and without prejudice to the

generality of the provisions of sub-section (1), the

measures which the Central Government may take

under that sub section include measures with respect

to all or any of the following matters, namely:—

(a) coordination of actions by various officers,

State Governments and other authorities—

(i) under this Act, or

(ii) under any other law for the time being

in force in connection with the

10

.

MASKED JUDGMENT by CaseOn: This document has been modified to redact sensitive

personal and financial identifiers pursuant to a Privacy Request. The non-essential

details of family members and financial accounts have been masked to prevent identity

theft and protect the privacy of private individuals.

enforcement of the provisions of this

Act;

(b) obligations under the International

Conventions;

(c) assistance to the concerned authorities in

foreign countries and concerned international

organisations with a view of facilitating

coordination and universal action for prevention

and suppression of illicit traffic in narcotic drugs

and psychotropic substances;

(d) identification, treatment, education, after care,

rehabilitation and social re-integration of

addicts;

(da) availability of narcotic drugs and psychotropic

substances for medical and scientific use;

(e) such other matters as the Central Government

deems necessary or expedient for the purpose

of securing the effective implementation of the

provisions of this Act and preventing and

combating the abuse of narcotic drugs and

psychotropic substances and illicit traffic

therein.

3) The Central Government may, if it considers

it necessary or expedient so to do for the purposes of

this Act, by order, published in the Official Gazette,

constitute an authority or a hierarchy of authorities by

such name or names as may be specified in the order

for the purpose of exercising such of the powers and

functions of the Central Government under this Act

and for taking measures with respect to such of the

matters referred to in sub-section (2) as may be

mentioned in the order, and subject to the supervision

and control of the Central Government and the

provisions of such order, such authority or authorities

may exercise the powers and take the measures so

mentioned in the order as if such authority or

authorities had been empowered by this Act to

exercise those powers and take such measures.”

11

.

MASKED JUDGMENT by CaseOn: This document has been modified to redact sensitive

personal and financial identifiers pursuant to a Privacy Request. The non-essential

details of family members and financial accounts have been masked to prevent identity

theft and protect the privacy of private individuals.

Sub-section (3) of Section 4 directs constitution of an authority

by the Central Government with specified powers. Section 50A

refers to Section 4(3). It is the officer who has been authorised

has to undertake such controlled delivery. ‘Controlled delivery’

in the case at hand is undertaken in the manner that is

described hereinabove.

9. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner

is that controlled delivery has to be mandatorily undertaken by

the Director General of NCB or an officer authorised by him.

Here, the respondent/Investigating Officer is neither the

Director General nor the officer authorised by him, has

undertaken controlled delivery. The issue now would be whether

Section 50A of the Act is mandatory insofar as it directs a

particular officer or a particular officer authorised by the

Director General to be the only person to undertake controlled

delivery.

10. It becomes germane to notice the findings rendered

by the coordinate Bench while granting bail to the petitioner.

The findings would lend necessary support the contention of

learned counsel for the petitioner coordinate Bench in the case

of MR.JUNAID HUSSAIN HAVERI v. UNION OF INDIA - Criminal

Petition No.6853 of 2023 and connected cases decided on 12th

September, 2023, has held as follows:

“…. …. ….

10. Section 50A of the NDPS Act provides

the power to undertake "controlled delivery".

Section 50A of the NDPS Act reads as follows:- 1

Criminal Petition No.6853 of 2023 and connected

cases decided on 12th September, 2023

"50A. Power to under take controlled

delivery. The Director General of Narcotics Control

Bureau constituted under subsection (3) of section 4

or any other officer authorised by him in this behalf,

may, notwithstanding anything contained in this Act,

undertake controlled delivery of any consignment

to—

(a) any destination in India;

12

.

MASKED JUDGMENT by CaseOn: This document has been modified to redact sensitive

personal and financial identifiers pursuant to a Privacy Request. The non-essential

details of family members and financial accounts have been masked to prevent identity

theft and protect the privacy of private individuals.

(b) a foreign country, in consultation with

the competent authority of such

foreign country to which such

consignment is destined, in such

manner as may be prescribed."

11. From a reading of the aforesaid provisions of

law, it is very clear that, exercise of "controlled delivery"

which is a investigative tool is undertaken by the

investigating officers who are authorised as provided

under section 50A of the NDPS Act with a view to

identifying the persons involved in the commission of

the offence under the NDPS Act.

12. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for

accused No.3 has raised a specific contention that

requirements of Section 50A of the NDPS Act has

not been complied with by the NCB officers before

undertaking the exercise of "controlled delivery".

He submits that, the officers were not authorised

under Section 50A of the NDPS Act and therefore,

it cannot be said that the accused persons were

identified.

13. Learned counsel appearing for

respondent has failed to demonstrate before this

court that, the officers who had undertaken the

exercise of "controlled delivery" with the help of

postman and post master of Marathahalli sub post

office were authorised as provided under section

50A of the NDPS Act. In the absence of

authorization as provided under Section 50A of the

NDPS Act which is the mandatory requirement of

law, it cannot be said that exercise of "controlled

delivery" undertaken by the NCB officers had

successfully led them to identify the persons

involved in the commission of offence under NDPS

Act. The NCB officers have recorded the delivery

proceedings of dummy parcel of speed post on

20.06.2023 at 17 hours. A perusal of the said

report would indicate that, there is no mention

about authorization under section 50A of the NDPS

Act obtained by the officers before undertaking

the "controlled delivery" mechanism. In fact, from

reading of the delivery proceedings it is seen that

immediately after the consignment was opened by

13

.

MASKED JUDGMENT by CaseOn: This document has been modified to redact sensitive

personal and financial identifiers pursuant to a Privacy Request. The non-essential

details of family members and financial accounts have been masked to prevent identity

theft and protect the privacy of private individuals.

the NCB officers in the post office, they had

requested the postmaster to designate postman

for the purpose of "controlled delivery" exercise.

In addition to the same, the exercise of "controlled

delivery" was undertaken by the NCB only as

against accused Nos.2 and 3. Though it is the

specific case of the prosecution that the

consignment was booked by accused No.1 through

accused No.2 in the name of accused No.3, the

exercise of "controlled delivery" was not

undertaken by the NCB officers as against accused

No.1 for the reasons best known to them.

…. …. ….

23. There is also no material to show that

accused Nos.2 and 3 had the knowledge that the

consignment/parcel which was booked by accused

No.1 contain contained narcotic

drugs/psychotropic substance. Since the

consignment/parcel was opened even before it

was delivered to the addressee and the

contraband article found in the

consignment/parcel was seized under a

panchanama in the absence of accused, the only

option open for the NCB officers to connect the

accused to the crime was by identifying them

through the technique known as "controlled

delivery". However, since the NCB officers have

not complied with mandatory requirements of

section 50A of the NDPS Act before undertaking

the exercise of "controlled delivery", the report of

"controlled delivery" on which reliance has been

placed by the prosecution cannot be considered

since the exercise of "controlled delivery" gets

vitiated for non-compliance of the mandatory

requirement under section 50A of the NDPS Act.”

(Emphasis supplied)

The coordinate Bench granting bail clearly holds that

panchanama would indicate that NCB has not complied with

the mandatory requirements of Section 50A before

undertaking the exercise of controlled delivery and non-

compliance of Section 50A would vitiate entire proceedings.

The said order granting bail, as on today has become final.

14

.

MASKED JUDGMENT by CaseOn: This document has been modified to redact sensitive

personal and financial identifiers pursuant to a Privacy Request. The non-essential

details of family members and financial accounts have been masked to prevent identity

theft and protect the privacy of private individuals.

11. I am in complete agreement with the reasons so

rendered by the coordinate Bench while granting bail. Since

the only submission made by the learned counsel appearing

for the petitioner was with regard to controlled delivery and

that having found favour with the petitioner, all further

proceedings in the aftermath of undertaking controlled

delivery, would become contrary to law, and lead to

obliteration of the crime against the petitioner.

12. For the aforesaid reasons, the following:

O R D E R

(i) Criminal Petition is allowed.

(ii) Proceedings in Special C.C. No.2932 of 2023

pending before the XXXIII Additional City Civil

and Sessions Judge and Special Judge for NDPS

Cases at Bangalore arising out of NCB Crime

No.48/1/24/2023/BZU of Narcotics Control

Bureau stand quashed qua the petitioner.

(iii) It is made clear that the observations made in

the course of the order are only for the purpose

of consideration of the case of petitioner under

Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and the same shall not

bind or influence the proceedings against any

other accused pending before the concerned

Court.”

The submission of the learned Additional Solicitor General is

that, in the subject petition, this Court should not follow what is

rendered qua accused No.2, as afore-quoted. While that would not

become acceptable, the contentions advanced by the learned

15

.

MASKED JUDGMENT by CaseOn: This document has been modified to redact sensitive

personal and financial identifiers pursuant to a Privacy Request. The non-essential

details of family members and financial accounts have been masked to prevent identity

theft and protect the privacy of private individuals.

counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Solicitor

General would undoubtedly merit consideration.

8. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner is pinned

down only on the voluntary statement recorded by the

Investigating Officer and there is no material evidence to show that

the petitioner/accused No.3 was aware of the contents of the

parcel. Therefore, the petitioner comes in as an accused only on the

basis of his voluntary statement. The voluntary statement of the

petitioner is as follows:

“VOLUNTARY STATEMENT OF JUNAID HUSSAIN HAVERI

xxXxxxxxxxxXxxxxxxvxxXxxxxxxxxXxxxxxxxxXxxxx

xxxxXxxxxxxxxXxxxxxxxxXxxxxxxxxXxxxxxxxxXxxx

xxxxxXxxxxxxxxXxxxxxxxxXxxxxxxxxXxxxxxxxxXxx

xxxxxxXxxxxxxxxXxxxxxxxxXxxxxxxxxXxxxxxxxxXx

xxxxxxxXxxxxxx. IN CONNECTION WITH SEIZURE OF

0.560 GMS (50 NOS) LSD BLOTS AT MARATHAHALLI

COLONY SUB POST OFFICE, BENGALURU, KARNATAKA -

560037 ON 20.06.2023. IN RESPONSE TO SUMMONS U/S 67

OF NDPS ACT 1985 DATED 20.06.2023 APPEARED BEFORE

SH.P.SIVA RAO, INTELLIGENCE OFFICER, NCB,

BANGALORE ZONAL UNIT ON 20.06.2023

I, Junaid Hussain Haveri, xxXxxxxxxxxXxxxxxxxxX

xxxxxx, have appeared today i.e.20.06.2023 before you to give

my voluntary statement in response to the summons issued to

me under section 67 of NDPS Act, 1985 dated 20.06.2023.

Before giving this statement, I have been informed about the

provisions of the section 67 of NDPS Act, 1985 that, the

16

.

MASKED JUDGMENT by CaseOn: This document has been modified to redact sensitive

personal and financial identifiers pursuant to a Privacy Request. The non-essential

details of family members and financial accounts have been masked to prevent identity

theft and protect the privacy of private individuals.

statement given by me can be used against anyone as evidence

in any court of law. I have been informed that, I can remain

silent and I can also deny giving my voluntary statement. This is

my statement given voluntarily. I can speak, read, write and

understand English, Hindi & Kannada. I request you to record

my statement in English as per my say.

xxXxxxxxxxxXxxxxxxxxXxxxxxxxxXxxxxxxxxXxxxxxx

xxXxxxxxxxxXxxxxxxxxXxxxxxxxxXxxxxxxxxXxxxxxxxxXxx

xxxxxxXxxxxxxxxXxxxxxxxxXxxxxxxxxXxxxxxxxxXxxxxxxx

xXxxxxxxxxXxxxxxxxxXxxxxxxxxXxxxxxxXxxxxxxxxXxxxxx

xxxXxxxxxxxxXxxxxxxxxXxxxxxxxxXxxxxxxxxXxxxxxxxxXx

xxxxxxxXxxxx

xxXxxxxxxxxXxxxxxxxxXxxxxxxxxXxxxxxxxxXxxxxxx

xxXxxxxxxxxXxxxxxxxxXxxxxxxxxXxxxxxxxxXxxxxxxxxXxx

xxxxxxXxxxxxxxxXxxxxxxxxXxxxxxxxxXxxxxxxxxXxxxxxxx

xXxxxxxxxxXxxxxxxxxXxxxxxxxxXxxxxxxXxxxxxxxxXxxxxx

xxxXxxxxxxxxXxxxxxxxxXxxxxxxxxXxxxxxxxxXxxxxxxxxXx

xxxxxxxXxxxx

I now request the NCB officer that, I want to take rest

and sleep. Tomorrow morning, I will continue giving my

statement. I was provided proper food.

This is my true statement which I am giving voluntarily. I

have given my statement without any fear or force. I have read

the contents of my statement. I have understood the same and

it has been correctly recorded and confirm that, it has been

typed exactly as I have told.

Sd/-

(Junaid Hussain Haveri)

20/06/2023

Recorded before me:

Sd/-20/06/2023

(P.Siva Rao)

IO, NCB, BZU

P. SIVA RAO Intelligence Officer

Narcotics Control Bureau

17

.

MASKED JUDGMENT by CaseOn: This document has been modified to redact sensitive

personal and financial identifiers pursuant to a Privacy Request. The non-essential

details of family members and financial accounts have been masked to prevent identity

theft and protect the privacy of private individuals.

MHA, Government of India

Bangalore Zonal Unit, Bengaluru-63”

…. …. ….

VOLUNTARY STATEMENT OF JUNAID HUSSAIN HAVERI

xxXxxxxxxxxXxxxxxxxxXxxxxxxxxXxxxxxxxxXxxxxxxxxXxx

xxxxxxXxxxxxxxxXxxxxxxxxXxxxxxxxxXxxxxxxxxXxxxxxxx

xXxxxxxxxxXxxxxxxxxXxxxxxxxxXxxxxxxxxXxxxxxxxxXxxx

xxxxxXxxxxxxxxXxxxxxxxxXxxxxxxXxxxxxxxxXxxxxxxxxXx

xxxxxxxXxxxxxxxxXxxxxxxxxXxxxxxxxxXxxxxxxxxXxxxxxx

xxXxxxx IN CONNECTION WITH SEIZURE OF 0.560 GMS (50

NOS) LSD BLOTS AT MARATHAHALLI COLONY SUB POST

OFFICE, BENGALURU, KARNATAKA-560037 ON 20.06.2023. IN

RESPONSE TO SUMMONS U/S 67 OF NDPS ACT 1985 DATED

20.06.2023 APPEARED BEFORE SH.P.SIVA RAO, INTELLIGENCE

OFFICER, NCB, BANGALORE ZONAL UNIT ON 21.06.2023.

In continuation to my statement on 20.06.2023, I

appeared before the intelligence officer to continue my

statement on 21.06.2023.

Upon asking about the said speed post parcel

ET586713424IN that contains drugs, I state that, on 20.06.2023

I received a parcel mentioned ET586713424IN from a post man

at my above address and I acknowledge the receipt of said

parcel which was in my name. After receipt of the said parcel

some persons intercepted me at my front entrance door of the

house and introduced that they are officers from NCB, BZU,

Bangalore and asked me about the said parcel. I told that, one

of my friend named Abhay Kumar informed me

telephonically that one parcel will come which was

addressed in my name and address and he requested me

to receive the same and handover to him i.e Abhay

Kumar. On 19.06.2023 Abhay Kumar again asked me

about the delivery of the above said parcel.

Questionnaire:

Q1) What is your mobile number and in whose name it

is subscribed?

18

.

MASKED JUDGMENT by CaseOn: This document has been modified to redact sensitive

personal and financial identifiers pursuant to a Privacy Request. The non-essential

details of family members and financial accounts have been masked to prevent identity

theft and protect the privacy of private individuals.

Ans:

xxXxxxxxxxxXxxxxxxxxXxxxxxxxxXxxxxxxxxXxxxxxx

xxXxxxxxxxxXxxxxxxxxXxxxxxxxxXxxxxxxxxXxxxxxx

Q2) Do you have any bank account? If yes, provide the

details of bank account?

Ans:

xxXxxxxxxxxXxxxxxxxxXxxxxxxxxXxxxxxxxxXxxxxxx

xxXxxxxxxxxXxxxxxxxxXxxxxxxxxXxxxxxxxxXxxxxxx

xxXxxxxxxxxXxxxxx

Q3) On 20.06.2023 a Speed post parcel bearing no.

ET586713424IN was seized from Marathahalli

Colony Sub Post Office, Bengaluru, Karnataka-

560037 in which 0.560 grams of LSD Blots (50 Nos)

were seized and the said parcel was found in the

name of Junaid Haveri xxXxxxxxxxxXxxxxxxxxXx

xxxxxxxXxxxxxxxxXxxxxxxxxXxxxxxxxxXxxxxxxxxXx

xxxxxxxXxxxxxxxxXxxxxxxxxXxxxxxxxxXxxxxxxxxxx

xxxxxXxxxxxxxxXxxxxxxxxXxxxxxxxxXxxxxxxxxXxxx

xxxxxXxxxxxxxxXxxxxxxxxXxxxxxxxxXxxxxxxxxXxxx

xxxxxXxxxxxxxxXxxxxxx What do you want to say

about this and whose mobile is xXxxxxxx

Ans: Actually, I am aware about the content of the said

parcel, on 18.06.2023 one of my friend named

Abhay Kumar informed me telephonically that one

parcel will come which was addressed in my name

and address and requested me to receive the same

and handover to him i.e Abhay Kumar or one of his

friend who will come to collect the same from the

said address. On 19.06.2023 Abhay Kumar again

asked me about the delivery of the above said

parcel.

Q4) Do you know the sender person as mentioned on

the seized Speed post parcel bearing no.

ET586713424IN?

Ans: No.

19

.

MASKED JUDGMENT by CaseOn: This document has been modified to redact sensitive

personal and financial identifiers pursuant to a Privacy Request. The non-essential

details of family members and financial accounts have been masked to prevent identity

theft and protect the privacy of private individuals.

Q5) Do you hold crypto currency? If yes, give details.

Ans: No.

Q6) Do you know the person named Abhay Kumar?

What is the connection with him and what is his

mobile number?

Ans: Yes. Abhay kumar is one of my friend and he was staying

at the same above mentioned xxxxXxxxxxxxxXxxxxx

xxxXxxxxxxxxXxxxxxxxxXxxxxxxxxXxxxxxxxxXxxxxx

xxxXxxxxxxxxXxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxXxxxxxxxxXand I was

recently moved to the said address last 04 months back and

we became roommates. I know him since from 18 months

through one of my college xxxXxxxxxxxxXxxxxx

xxxXxxxxxxxxXxxxxxxxxXxxxxxxxxXxxxxxxxxXxxxxx

xxxxxxxxxxXxxxxxxxxX

Q7) Do you consume drugs and from when?

Ans: Yes, I consume Ganja occasionally along with my friends.

Q8) Whether you have ordered any drugs?

Ans: No.

Q9) Whether you had any contacts with any drug

trafficking person/associates? Do you had any

conversations with them? Explain.

Ans: Previously my friend Abhay had xxxXxxxxxxxxXxxx

xxxxxXxxxxxxxxXxxxxxxxxXxxxxxxxxxxxx which I

had received in the month of June, 2023 and I had

intimated xxXxxxxx over whatsapp. I kept it near the

front door window of our villa and the window door

was kept open and I don't know who picked the said

previous parcel. I hereby put my signatures on the

whatsapp chats made with xxXxxxxx regarding

previous parcel and I had used the code of mics which

means LSD chemicals i.e. LSD Blots.

Q10) Do you have any previous criminal history?

Ans: No.

20

.

MASKED JUDGMENT by CaseOn: This document has been modified to redact sensitive

personal and financial identifiers pursuant to a Privacy Request. The non-essential

details of family members and financial accounts have been masked to prevent identity

theft and protect the privacy of private individuals.

Q11) Do you know any person by name Ayush Borse ?

Ans: Yes, xxXxxxxxxxXxxxxxxxXxxxxxxxXxxxxxxxXxxxxx.

Q12) What is your Adhar Card number and Pan Card

number?

Ans: xxXxxxxxxxXxxxxxxxXxxxxxxxXxxxxxxxXxxxxx

xxXxxxxxxxXxxxxxxxXxxxx

I now request the NCB officer to give me a break, as I

want to take rest. After some rest and food, I will continue

giving my statement.

This is my true statement which I am giving voluntarily. I

have given my statement without any fear or force. I was

explained about the contents of my statement. I have

understood the same and it has been correctly recorded and

confirm that, it has been typed as per my say.

Recorded before me:

Sd/-21/06/2023

(P.Siva Rao)

IO, NCB, Bengaluru

P. SIVA RAO Intelligence Officer

Narcotics Control Bureau

MHA, Government of India

Bangalore Zonal Unit, Bengaluru-63”

Sd/-

(Junaid Hussain Haveri)

21/06/2023

(Emphasis added)

A perusal at the statement indicates that accused Nos.1 and 2 had

certain transactions and accused No.2 telephonically informs

accused No.3 that a parcel will be delivered in the name of accused

21

.

MASKED JUDGMENT by CaseOn: This document has been modified to redact sensitive

personal and financial identifiers pursuant to a Privacy Request. The non-essential

details of family members and financial accounts have been masked to prevent identity

theft and protect the privacy of private individuals.

No.3 and requested accused No.3 to collect the same and hand it

over to accused No.2. Accused No.3 contends that accused No.2

was his roommate previously and what had happened is found in

the afore-quoted voluntary statement. Voluntary statement of

accused No.2 is also recorded which reveals the role of accused

No.3, the petitioner. The voluntary statement and further

statement of accused No.2 is as follows:

“VOLUNTARY STATEMENT OF ABHAY KUMAR xxxxXxx

xxxxxxXxxxxxxxxXxxxxxxxxXxxxxxxxxXxxxxxxxxXx

xxxxxxxXxxxxxxxxXxxxxxxxxXxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxXxxx

xxxxxX, IN CONNECTION WITH SEIZURE OF 0.560 GMS (50

NOS) LSD BLOTS AT MARATHAHALLI COLONY SUB POST

OFFICE, BENGALURU, KARNATAKA -560037 ON 20.06.2023.

IN RESPONSE TO SUMMONS U/S 67 OF NDPS ACT 1985

DATED 20.06.2023 APPEARED BEFORE SH.P.SIVA RAO,

INTELLIGENCE OFFICER, NCB, BANGALORE ZONAL UNIT

ON 20.06.2023.

I, Abhay Kumar, xxxxxXxxxxxxxx XxxxxxxxxXxxxxx,

have appeared today 1.e.20.06.2023 before you to give my

voluntary statement in response to the summons issued to me

under section 67 of NDPS Act, 1985 dated 20.06.2023. Before

giving this statement, I have been informed about the

provisions of the section 67 of NDPS Act, 1985 that, the

statement given by me can be used against anyone as evidence

in any court of law. I have been informed that, I can remain

silent and I can also deny giving my voluntary statement. This is

my statement given voluntarily. I can speak, read, write and

understand English & Hindi. I request you to record my

statement in English as per my say.

22

.

MASKED JUDGMENT by CaseOn: This document has been modified to redact sensitive

personal and financial identifiers pursuant to a Privacy Request. The non-essential

details of family members and financial accounts have been masked to prevent identity

theft and protect the privacy of private individuals.

xxxxXxxxxxxxxXxxxxxxxxXxxxxxxxxXxxxxxxxxXxxxx

xxxxXxxxxxxxxXxxxxxxxxXxxxxxxxxXxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxXxx

xxxxxxXxxxxXxxxxxxxxXxxxxxxxxXxxxxxxxxXxxxxxxxxXxx

xxxxxxXxxxxxxxxXxxxxxxxxXxxxxxxxxXxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxX

xxxxxxxxX

xxxxXxxxxxxxxXxxxxxxxxXxxxxxxxxXxxxxxxxxXxxxx

xxxxXxxxxxxxxXxxxxxxxxXxxxxxxxxXxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxXxx

xxxxxxXxxxxXxxxxxxxxXxxxxxxxxXxxxxxxxxXxxxxxxxxXxx

xxxxxxXxxxxxxxxXxxxxxxxxXxxxxxxxxXxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxX

xxxxxxxxX

xxxxXxxxxxxxxXxxxxxxxxXxxxxxxxxXxxxxxxxxXxxxx

xxxxXxxxxxxxxXxxxxxxxxXxxxxxxxxXxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxXxx

xxxxxxXxxxxXxxxxxxxxXxxxxxxxxXxxxxxxxxXxxxxxxxxXxx

xxxxxxXxxxxxxxxXxxxxxxxxXxxxxxxxxXxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxX

xxxxxxxxX

I now request the NCB officer that, I want to take rest and

sleep. Tomorrow morning, I will continue giving my statement. I

was provided proper food.

This is my true statement which I am giving voluntarily. I

have given my statement without any fear or force. I have read

the contents of my statement. I have understood the same and

it has been correctly recorded and confirm that, it has been

typed exactly as I have told.

Sd/-

20/6/23

(Abhay Kumar)

Recorded before me:

Sd/-

20/06/2023

(P.Siva Rao)

23

.

MASKED JUDGMENT by CaseOn: This document has been modified to redact sensitive

personal and financial identifiers pursuant to a Privacy Request. The non-essential

details of family members and financial accounts have been masked to prevent identity

theft and protect the privacy of private individuals.

I0, NCB, BZU

P. SIVA RAO

Intelligence Officer

Narcotics Control Bureau

MHA, Government of India

Bangalore Zonal Unit, Bengaluru-63”

………………… ……………………. ……………

“VOLUNTARY STATEMENT OF ABHAY KUMAR xxxxXxxxxxxxxX

xxxxxxxxXxxxxxxxxXxxxxxxxxXxxxxxxxxXxxxxxxxxXxxxxx

xxxXxxxxxxxxXxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxXxxxxxxxxXxxxxXxxxxxxx

xXxxxxxxxxXxxxxxxxxXxxxxxxxxXxxxxxxxxXxxxxxxxxXxxx

xxxxxXxxxxxxxxXxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxXxxxxxx IN CONNECTION

WITH SEIZURE OF 0.560 GMS (50 NOS) LSD BLOTS AT

MARATHAHALLI COLONY SUB POST OFFICE, BENGALURU,

KARNATAKA-560037 ON 20.06.2023. IN RESPONSE TO

SUMMONS U/S-67 OF NDPS ACT 1985 DATED 20.06.2023

APPEARED BEFORE SH.P.SIVA RAO, INTELLIGENCE OFFICER,

NCB, BANGALORE ZONAL UNIT ON 21.06.2023.

In continuation to my statement on 20.06.2023, I

appeared before the intelligence officer to continue my

statement on 21.06.2023.

Upon asking about the speed post parcel

ET58671342IN in the name of Junaid Haveri that contains

drugs, I state that, said parcel was belong to one of my

friend named Ayush Borse which was sent in the name of

my friend Junaid Haveri at the xxxxXxxxxxxxxX

xxxxxxxxXxxxxxxxxXxxxxxxxxXxxxxxxxxXxxxxxxxxXxxxxx

xxxXxxxxxxxxXxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxXxxxxxxxxXxxxxXxxxxxxx

xXxxxxxxxxXxxxxxxxxXxxxxxxxxX as I vacated from the

said address on 12

th

June 2023. Earlier two days back on

18.06.2023, I informed to Junaid Haveri telephonically that

one parcel will come which was addressed in his name

(Junaid Haveri) and at above mentioned address and

requested him to receive the same and handover to me

i.e. Abhay Kumar or to one of my friend who will come to

collect the same parcel from the above said address and

again on 19.06.2023 I

24

.

MASKED JUDGMENT by CaseOn: This document has been modified to redact sensitive

personal and financial identifiers pursuant to a Privacy Request. The non-essential

details of family members and financial accounts have been masked to prevent identity

theft and protect the privacy of private individuals.

asked him about the confirmation of delivery of the above

said parcel.

Further, Ayush Borse asked me telephonically and

through whatsapp disappearing message on 20.06.2023

whether the said parcel is delivered or not. As, I was

busy in my college activities, I given mobile number of

Junaid Haveri to Ayush Borse to contact him and can

collect the said parcel from Junaid Haveri address. Then,

on 20.06.2023 evening I was intercepted by NCB, BZU,

Bangalore at xxxxxxxXxxxx when I taken the parcel of

speed post parcel ET58671342IN which was booked from

Ayush Borse. Then, NCB official served a notice u/s 67 of

the NDPS Act, to me and was summoned to NCB Office,

Bengaluru forthwith to appear for enquiry in relation to

NCB Case No.48/1/24/2023/BZU. Then I accompanied NCB

team to NCB Office, Bangalore on 20.06.2023.

Questionnaire:

Q1) What is your mobile number and in whose name it is

subscribed?

Ans: xxxxxxxXxxxxxxxxxxxXxxxxxxxxxxxXxxxx and it is

subscribed in my name.

Q2) On 20.06.2023 a Speed post parcel bearing no.

ET586713424IN was seized xxxxxxxXxxxxxxxx xxxXxxxxxx

xxxxxXxxxxxxxxxxxXxxxxxxxxxxxXxxxxxxxxxxxXxxxxxxxx

xxxXxxxxin which 0.560 grams of LSD Blots (50 Nos) were

seized and the said parcel was found in the name of

Junaid Haveri xxxxxxxXxxxxxxxxxxxXxxxxx xxxxxxXxxxx

xxxxxxxXxxxxxxxxxxxXxxxxxxxxxxxXxxxxxxxxxxxX and it

was sent xxxxxxxXxxxxxxxxxxxXxxxxxxx xxxxXxxxx

xxxxxxxXxxxxxxxxxxxXxxxxxxxxxxxXxxxxxxxxxxxXxxxxxx

xxxxxXxxxxxxxxxxxXxxxxxxxxxxxXxxxxxxxxxxxXxxxxxxxx

xxxXxxxxWhat do you want to say about this and whose

mobile is xxxxxxxXxxxx?

Ans: The speed post parcel ET58671342IN in the name of

Junaid Haveri that contains drugs was belong to one of

my acquaintance named Ayush Borse which was sent in

the name of my friend Junaid Haveri at the address

xxxxxxxXxxxx

25

.

MASKED JUDGMENT by CaseOn: This document has been modified to redact sensitive

personal and financial identifiers pursuant to a Privacy Request. The non-essential

details of family members and financial accounts have been masked to prevent identity

theft and protect the privacy of private individuals.

xxxxxxxXxxxxxxxxxxxXxxxxxxxxxxxXxxxxxxxxxxxXxxxxxx

xxxxxXxxxxxxxxxxxXxxxx. The name and address of

Junaid Haveri was given by me to Ayush Borse as

receiver address, as I vacated from the said address on 12

th

June 2023. Earlier two days back on 18.06.2023, I informed

to Junaid Haveri telephonically that one drug parcel will

come which was addressed in his name i.e Junaid Haveri

and at above mentioned address and requested him to

receive the same and handover to me i.e. Abhay Kumar or

to one of my friend who will come to collect the same

parcel from the above said address. On 19.06.2023 I

again asked him about the delivery of the above said

parcel. Ayush Borse asked me telephonically and through

whatsapp disappearing message on 20.06.2023 whether

the said parcel is delivered or not. As, I was busy in my

college activities, I given mobile number of Junaid Haveri

to Ayush Borse to contact him and can collect the said

parcel from Junaid Haveri address.

Q3) Do you use darknet ?

Ans: No Sir. I don’t know how to use darknet.

Q4) What roles did you play in booking the said drugs

parcel ET586713424IN?

Ans: I had done the payment of 2.82417 XMR to wallet id:

xxxxxxxXxxxxxxxxxxxXxxxxxxxxxxxXxxxxxxxxxxxXxxxxxx

xxxxxXxxxxxxxxxxxXxxxxxxxxxxxXxxxxxxxxxxxXxxxxxxxx

xxxXxxxxxxxxxxxXxxxxxxxxxxxXxxxx My friend Ayush Borse

had given me Rs.10,100/ on 12.06.2023 and one of his friend

Aditya Bhatt at also sent me Rs.6000/-. Total I got Rs. 16,100/-.

Ayush told me to pay to the above mentioned wallet id an

amount of about Rs.31,100/- to the above wallet id. I had put

Rs.15,000/- from my account and completed the transaction of

Rs.31,100/- equivalent 2.82417 XMR at that time to the above

mentioned wallet id. Then I had sent the screenshot of the

payment to Ayush Borse. I hereby show the transactions and

the payment details on the Binance app and put my

signature on the screenshots of these payment details.

Q5) Do you know Ayush Borse and Aditya Bhatt? What

are there mobile numbers?

26

.

MASKED JUDGMENT by CaseOn: This document has been modified to redact sensitive

personal and financial identifiers pursuant to a Privacy Request. The non-essential

details of family members and financial accounts have been masked to prevent identity

theft and protect the privacy of private individuals.

Ans. Yes. I know Ayush Borse but I don’t know Aditya bhatt.

Ayush Borse is a friend of mine. Aditya Bhatt is a friend of

Ayush but I don’t know Aditya. The phone number of

Ayush Borse is xxxxxxxXxxxx I don’t know the mobile

number of Aditya.

Q6) Do you hold crypto currency? If yes, give details

Ans.: I hold crypto currency and the details are as below:

xxxxxxxXxxxx

a. xxxxxxxXxxxxxxxxxxxXxxxxxxxxxxxXxxxx

b. xxxxxxxXxxxx

c. xxxxxxxXxxxx xxxxxxxXxxxx

i. xxxxxxxXxxxx xxxxxxxXxxxx

xxxxxxxXx

ii. xxx xxxxxxxXxxxx xxxxxxxXxxxx

xxxxxxxXxxxx

I put my signature on the screen shot of my wallet id.

Q7) Do you consume drugs and from when?

Ans: I used to consume Ganja only in college time and other

occasions. But since two-three months I have not taken

any drugs.

Q8) Whether you have ordered any drugs?

Ans: No sir I have not ordered any drugs. But I had bought

Ganja by cash from some of my friends in the past.

Q9) How did you order the drugs in darknet? How was

the payment made & source of money?

Ans: I had not ordered any drugs on the darknet. I had made

payment of Rs.31,100/- approx. to wallet

xxxxxxxXxxxx xxx xxxxXxxxx xxxxxxxXxxxx

xxxxxxxXxxxx xxxxxxxXxxxx xxxxxxxXxxxx

xxxxxxxXxxxx xxxxxxxXxxxx xxxxxxxXxxxx

xxxxxxxXxxxx on the directions of Ayush Borse. Ayush

Borse had told me to pay amount to the above

mentioned wallet id.

27

.

MASKED JUDGMENT by CaseOn: This document has been modified to redact sensitive

personal and financial identifiers pursuant to a Privacy Request. The non-essential

details of family members and financial accounts have been masked to prevent identity

theft and protect the privacy of private individuals.

Ayush told me that he would give me back the remaining

amount i.e. Rs.15,000/- which I had put from my bank

account for the above payment.

Q10) How do you know Junaid Haveri?

Ans: I got to know about Junaid Haveri from my mutual friends.

Junaid Haveri moved into the same Villa in which I was

already staying. Junaid was staying with me since from

04 months.

Q11) Does Ayush know Junaid Haveri?

Ans: Ayush does not know about Junaid Haveri directly. I had

introduced Junaid to Ayush.

I now request the NCB officer to give me a break, as I

want to take rest. After some rest and food, I will continue

giving my statement.

This is my true statement which I am giving voluntarily. I

have given my statement without any fear or force. I was

explained about the contents of my statement. I have

understood the same and it has been correctly recorded and

confirm that, it has been typed as per my say.

Sd/-

(Abhay Kumar)

21/6/2023

Recorded before me

Sd/-

21/06/2023

(P.Siva Rao)

IO,NCB, Bengaluru

P. SIVA RAO

Intelligence Officer

Narcotics Control Bureau

28

.

MASKED JUDGMENT by CaseOn: This document has been modified to redact sensitive

personal and financial identifiers pursuant to a Privacy Request. The non-essential

details of family members and financial accounts have been masked to prevent identity

theft and protect the privacy of private individuals.

MHA, Government of India

Bangalore Zonal Unit, Bengaluru-63”

…. …. …..

“VOLUNTARY STATEMENT OF ABHAY KUMAR xxxxxxxXxxx

xxxxxxxXxxxx xxxxxxxXxxxx xxxxxxxXxxxx

xxxxxxxXxxxx xxxxxxxXxxxx xxxxxxxXxxxx

xxxxxxxXxxxx xxxxxxxXxxxx xxxxxxxXxxxx

xxxxxxxXxxxx. IN CONNECTION WITH SEIZURE OF 0.560

GMS (50 NOS) LSD BLOTS AT MARATHAHALLI COLONY SUB

POST OFFICE, BENGALURU, KARNATAKA -560037 ON

20.06.2023. IN RESPONSE TO SUMMONS U/S 67 OF NDPS

ACT 1985 DATED 20.06.2023 APPEARED BEFORE SH.P.SIVA

RAO, INTELLIGENCE OFFICER, NCB, BANGALORE ZONAL

UNIT ON 22.06.2023.

In continuation to my statement on 21.06.2023, I

appeared before the intelligence officer to continue my

statement on 22.06.2023.

Q12) Who gave the address of Junaid Haveri to Ayush

Borse?

Ans: I had given the address and details of Junaid Haveri to

Ayush Borse when he asked for address to get some of

his parcels.

Q13) Why did you give the address of Junaid Haveri to

Ayush Borse?

Ans: I had given the address and details of Junaid Haveri to

Ayush Borse because I had shifted to the xxxxxxxXxxxx

xxxxxxxXxxxxxxxxxxxXxxxxxxxxxxxXxxxxxxxxxxxXx

xx xxxxxxxxXxxxxxxxxxxxXxxxx for getting the parcel

for Ayush Borse.

Q14) Can you show the chat which you had with Ayush

on Whatsapp?

29

.

MASKED JUDGMENT by CaseOn: This document has been modified to redact sensitive

personal and financial identifiers pursuant to a Privacy Request. The non-essential

details of family members and financial accounts have been masked to prevent identity

theft and protect the privacy of private individuals.

Ans: Yes sir I can show the chats which will disappear as Ayush

Borse had activated disappearing messages feature on

Whatsapp. I hereby put my sign on the whatsapp chats

made between us.

Q15) What is the role of Ayush Borse and Aditya Bhatt in

procurement of this drug parcel ET586713424IN?

Ans: Ayush Borse had ordered the parcel ET587713424IN.

Ayush Borse transferred Rs.10,100/- into my bank

account and Aditya Bhatt had transferred Rs.6,000/- into

my bank account for making payment to the wallet id

given by Ayush Borse. I had paid the remaining amount

of Rs.15,000/- from my bank account. I hereby put my

sign on the google Pay payment slips of Ayush and

Aditya.

Q16) Do you have a bank account? If so name of the bank

and branch?

Ans: xxxxxxxXxxxx xxxxxxxXxxxx xxxxxxxXxxxx

xxxxxxxXxxxx xxxxxxxXxxxx xxxxxxxXxxxx

xxxxxxxXxxxx xxxxxxxXxxxx

Q17) What is the mobile number of Junaid Hussain

Haveri?

Ans: The mobile No. of Junaid Haveri is 7829023969.

Q18) Earlier any such drug parcels booked by you?

Ans: Earlier one parcel was booked by Ayush Borse and

delivered in my name at the same above mentioned

xxxxxxxXxxxxxxxxxxxXxxxxxxxxxxxXxxxxxxxxxxxXx

xxxxxxxxxxXxxxxxxxxxxxXxxxxxxxxxxxXxxxxxxxxxx

xXxxxxxxxxxxxXxxxx once told me that he had a

contact with some person who send LSD blots through

such parcels to him and this time also he ordered LSD blots

in the said parcel. The payment made by me for the

previous parcel was done through my Binance Wallet and I

hereby put my signatures on the previous transaction

statement and history.

30

.

MASKED JUDGMENT by CaseOn: This document has been modified to redact sensitive

personal and financial identifiers pursuant to a Privacy Request. The non-essential

details of family members and financial accounts have been masked to prevent identity

theft and protect the privacy of private individuals.

Q19) Do Junaid Haveri was aware of the contents of said

seized parcel ET586713424IN? Do you have

informed him about Concealment of LSD blots in

said parcel to him?

Ans: Yes.

Q20) Do you have any previous criminal history?

Ans.: No.

Q21). What is your Adhar Card number and Pan Card

number?

Ans. xxxxxxxXxxxx xxxxxxxXxxxx xxxxxxxXxxxx

xxxxxxxXxxxx

Q22) Do you have any movable and immovable property

in your name and family members name?

Ans. xxxxxxxXxxxx xxxxxxxXxxxx xxxxxxxXxxxx

xxxxxxxXxxxx xxxxxxxXxxxx xxxxxxxXxxxx

xxxxxxxXxxxx

Q23) You are hereby shown one photographs of two

persons. Can you identify them?

Ans. Yes Sir. I identify them as Junaid Haveri is my friend and

another person is Ayush Borse who is acquaintance of

mine.

Q24) Do you know that dealing with drugs, smuggling

drugs is an offence in India?

Yes, I very well know that drugs smuggling and helping in

smuggling drugs is an offence in India.

Q25) Do you want to say anything else?

Ans. Nothing. Further, I will not repeat any such activities or

being involved in such drug related cases.

31

.

MASKED JUDGMENT by CaseOn: This document has been modified to redact sensitive

personal and financial identifiers pursuant to a Privacy Request. The non-essential

details of family members and financial accounts have been masked to prevent identity

theft and protect the privacy of private individuals.

I now request the NCB officer to give me a break, as I

want to take rest. After some rest and food, I will continue

giving my statement.

This is my true statement which I am giving voluntarily. I

have given my statement without any fear or force. I was

explained about the contents of my statement. I have

understood the same and it has been correctly recorded and

confirm that, it has been typed as per my say.

Sd/-

(Abhay Kumar)

22/6/2023

Recorded before me

Sd/-

22/06/2023

(P.Siva Rao)

IO,NCB, Bengaluru

P. SIVA RAO

Intelligence Officer

Narcotics Control Bureau

MHA, Government of India

Bangalore Zonal Unit, Bengaluru-63”

(Emphasis added)

What is discernible from the statement recorded of accused

No.2 is that he has spoken to the petitioner to take the parcel. In

all these, there is no material except the voluntary statement of

accused No.2 and voluntary / confession statement of accused

No.3, the petitioner. The voluntary statement of another accused –

accused No.1 reads as follows:

32

.

MASKED JUDGMENT by CaseOn: This document has been modified to redact sensitive

personal and financial identifiers pursuant to a Privacy Request. The non-essential

details of family members and financial accounts have been masked to prevent identity

theft and protect the privacy of private individuals.

“VOLUNTARY STATEMENT OF AYUSH KISHOR BORSE

xxxxxxxXxxxxxxxxxxxXxxxxxxxxxxxXxxxxxxxxxxxXx

xxxxxxxxxxXxxxxxxxxxxxXxxxx xxxxxxxXxxxx

xxxxxxxXxxxx xxxxxxxXxxxx OF 0.560 GMS (50 NOS)

LSD BLOTS AT MARATHAHALLI COLONY SUB POST OFFICE,

BENGALURU, KARNATAKA -560037 ON 20.06.2023. IN

RESPONSE TO SUMMONS U/S 67 OF NDPS ACT 1985

DATED 21.06.2023 APPEARED BEFORE SH.P.SIVA RAO,

INTELLIGENCE OFFICER, NCB, BANGALORE ZONAL UNIT

ON 21.06.2023.

I, Ayush Kishor Borse, xxxxxxxXxxxxxxxxxxxXxxxxxxx,

have appeared today i.e.21.06.2023 before you to give my

voluntary statement in response to the summons issued to me

under section 67 of NDPS Act, 1985 dated 21.06.2023. Before

giving this statement, I have been informed about the

provisions of the section 67 of NDPS Act, 1985 that, the

statement given by me can be used against anyone as evidence

in any court of law. I have been informed that, I can remain

silent and I can also deny giving my voluntary statement. This is

my, statement given voluntarily. I can speak, read, write and

understand English, Hindi & Marathi language. I request you to

record my statement in English as per my say.

On being asked, I state that, I completed my graduation

xxxxxxxXxxxxxxxxxxxXxxxxxxxxxxxXxxxxxxxxxxxXxxxxxx

xxxxxXxxxxxxxxxxxXxxxx xxxxxxxXxxxx xxxxxxxXxxxx

xxxxxxxXxxxxxxxxxxxXxxxxxxxxxxxXxxxxxxxxxxxXxxxxxx

xxxxxXxxxxxxxxxxxXxxxxxxxxxxxXxxxx xxxxxxxXxxxx

xxxxxxxXxxxx xxxxxxxXxxxx

xxxxxxxXxxxxxxxxxxxXxxxxxxxxxxxXxxxxxxxxxxxXx

xxxxxxxxxxXxxxxxxxxxxxXxxxx xxxxxxxXxxxx

xxxxxxxXxxxx xxxxxxxXxxxx

xxxxxxxXxxxxxxxxxxxXxxxxxxxxxxxXxxxxxxxxxxxXxxxxxx

xxxxxXxxxxxxxxxxxXxxxx xxxxxxxXxxxx xxxxxxxXxxxx

xxxxxxxXxxxx

Upon asking about the speed post parcel

ET586713424IN in the name of Junaid Haveri that

33

.

MASKED JUDGMENT by CaseOn: This document has been modified to redact sensitive

personal and financial identifiers pursuant to a Privacy Request. The non-essential

details of family members and financial accounts have been masked to prevent identity

theft and protect the privacy of private individuals.

contains drugs, I state that, said parcel was belong to me

which was sent in the name Junaid Haveri xxxxxxxXxx

xxxxxxxxxXxxxxxxxxxxxXxxxxxxxxxxxXxxxxxxxxxxxXxxxx

xxxxxx I know a person named Swapnil Joshi @

S. Joshi who is available on telegram for communication for

booking the drugs and he sent through postal services to the

address given by me. The said person i.e Swapnil Joshi @ S.

Joshi came into contact through telegram through one person

last 01 year back and I don't remember his name and mobile

number. I ordered the said seized parcel that contains LSD

Blots 50 Nos around one week back through Swapnil

Joshi by telegram and it was sent in the name and

address of Junaid Haveri which was given by Abhay

Kumar to me. I further gave the said details to Swapnil Joshi

through telegram. Actually, I want to order for only 03 LSD

Blots for self consumption, but Swapnil Joshi mentioned to me

that the vendor is accepting orders only if the minimum order

quantity is 50 LSD Blots. I decided to go forward with the order,

but the payment was only accepted in Crypto (XMR-MONERO).

As I do not have Crypto then I asked Abhay Kumar to use his

Crypto account for making payment. The total amount for

placing order is around Rs.31,100/- (Approx.) and due to not

having sufficient money in my Equitas bank, I transferred Rs.

10,100/- through UPI to the bank account of Abhay Kumar and

Rs. 6,000/- was paid by my friend Aditya Bhatt bank account by

requesting Abhay Kumar to pay the rest of money from him

which will be returned back to him after some days. Then,

Swapnil joshi sent wallet id to me through telegram for

transferring the crypto coins, then the same was forwarded by

me to Abhay Kumar on whatsapp. Then Abhay Kumar

transferred the crypto coins to the wallet id which was sent by

me to Abhay Kumar. Swapnil joshi had activated auto delete

feature in telegram.”

(Emphasis added)

On a coalesce of the statements recorded as quoted

hereinabove, there is nothing to show that the petitioner is involved

in the crime other than the voluntary statement or confession

34

.

MASKED JUDGMENT by CaseOn: This document has been modified to redact sensitive

personal and financial identifiers pursuant to a Privacy Request. The non-essential

details of family members and financial accounts have been masked to prevent identity

theft and protect the privacy of private individuals.

statement recorded in the course of the investigation. Apart from

the ground on which proceedings of accused No.2 being quashed

become squarely applicable to the case at hand. The case of the

petitioner stands entirely on the voluntary statements as afore-

quoted. Whether this is permissible or not, need not detain this

Court for long or delve deep into the matter.

9. The Apex Court in the case of TOFAN SINGH v. STATE

OF TAMIL NADU

2

, has held as follows:

“158.1. That 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

be taken into account in order to convict an accused

under the NDPS Act.

158.2. That a statement recorded under Section 67

of the NDPS Act cannot be used as a confessional

statement in the trial of an offence under the NDPS Act.”

(Emphasis supplied)

2

(2021) 4 SCC 1

35

.

MASKED JUDGMENT by CaseOn: This document has been modified to redact sensitive

personal and financial identifiers pursuant to a Privacy Request. The non-essential

details of family members and financial accounts have been masked to prevent identity

theft and protect the privacy of private individuals.

This judgment is followed and the principles are reiterated in

the case of AJAY KUMAR GUPTA v. UNION OF INDIA

3

, wherein

it is held as follows:

“…. …. ….

13. We may note that the trial court and High Court

have relied upon the appellant's statement under Section

67 of the NDPS Act. In para 158 of the decision of this

Court in Tofan Singh [Tofan Singh v. State of T.N., (2021)

4 SCC 1: (2021) 2 SCC (Cri) 246], this Court held thus:

(SCC p. 141)

“158. We answer the reference by stating:

158.1. That 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 be taken into account in

order to convict an accused under the NDPS Act.

158.2. That a statement recorded under

Section 67 of the NDPS Act cannot be used as a

confessional statement in the trial of an offence

under the NDPS Act.”

(emphasis supplied)

14. Therefore, the appellant's statement recorded

under Section 67 of the NDPS Act is not admissible in

evidence and cannot be read in evidence.”

(Emphasis supplied)

3

(2024) 9 SCC 455

36

.

MASKED JUDGMENT by CaseOn: This document has been modified to redact sensitive

personal and financial identifiers pursuant to a Privacy Request. The non-essential

details of family members and financial accounts have been masked to prevent identity

theft and protect the privacy of private individuals.

Again, the Apex Court in the case of KARAN TALWAR v.

STATE OF TAMIL NADU

4

, has held as follows:

“…. …. ….

10. As is evident from the said Section, the alleged

offence is consumption of narcotic drug or psychotropic

substance other than those specified in or under clause (a) of

Section 27, NDPS Act, and therefore, the question is whether

any material is available to charge the appellant thereunder.

The contention of the appellant is that he has been

arraigned as accused No. 13 based on the confession

statement of co-accused viz., accused No. 1. Certainly, in

the absence of any other material on record to connect

the appellant with the crime, the confession statement of

the co-accused by itself cannot be the reason for his

implication in the crime. This view has been fortified by

the law laid down in Suresh Budharmal Kalani v. State of

Maharashtra

3

, wherein it was stated that a co-accused's

confession containing incriminating matter against a

person would not by itself suffice to frame charge against

him. The materials on record would reveal that the investigating

agency had not subjected him to medical examination and

instead, going by complaint Witness No. 23, he smelt the

accused. The less said the better and we do not think it

necessary to comment upon adoption of such a course. We need

only to say that even if he tendered such evidence, it would not

help the prosecution in anyway. 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

4

. 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

4

2024 SCC OnLine SC 3803

37

.

MASKED JUDGMENT by CaseOn: This document has been modified to redact sensitive

personal and financial identifiers pursuant to a Privacy Request. The non-essential

details of family members and financial accounts have been masked to prevent identity

theft and protect the privacy of private individuals.

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.

11. When this be the position, the question is whether

the two Courts were justified in holding that there is prima

facie case against the appellant to proceed against him. In this

contextual situation, it is relevant to refer to the decision of this

Court in DipakbhaiJagadishchandra Patel v. State of

Gujarat

5

Paragraphs 23 and 24 of the said decision are relevant

for the purpose of this case and they read thus:—

“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.

24. Undoubtedly, this Court has in Suresh

Budharmal Kalani [Suresh Budharmal

Kalani v. State of Maharashtra, (1998) 7 SCC 337],

taken the view that confession by a co-accused

containing incriminating matter against a person

38

.

MASKED JUDGMENT by CaseOn: This document has been modified to redact sensitive

personal and financial identifiers pursuant to a Privacy Request. The non-essential

details of family members and financial accounts have been masked to prevent identity

theft and protect the privacy of private individuals.

would not by itself suffice to frame charge against

it. We may incidentally note that the Court has

relied upon the judgment of this Court in Kashmira

Singh v. State of M.P. [Kashmira Singh v. State of

M.P., (1952) 1 SCC 275]. We notice that the

observations, which have been relied upon, were

made in the context of an appeal which arose from

the conviction of the appellant therein after a trial.

The same view has been followed undoubtedly in

other cases where the question arose in the

context of a conviction and an appeal therefrom.

However, in Suresh Budharmal Kalani [Suresh

Budharmal Kalani v. State of Maharashtra, (1998)

7 SCC 337], the Court has proceeded to take the

view that only on the basis of the statement of the

co-accused, no case is made out, even for framing

a charge.”

(underline supplied)

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)

The judgment of the Apex Court rendered in TOFAN SINGH’s

case (supra) is followed by this Court in identical offences and

proceedings against the accused therein and quashed the same, in

39

.

MASKED JUDGMENT by CaseOn: This document has been modified to redact sensitive

personal and financial identifiers pursuant to a Privacy Request. The non-essential

details of family members and financial accounts have been masked to prevent identity

theft and protect the privacy of private individuals.

the case of PARITOSH CHANDRASHEKAR KULKARNI v. STATE

OF KARNATAKA

5

, wherein this Court has held as follows:

“…. …. ….

9. The petitioner is dragged into the crime as

accused No. 3 and in the charge sheet as absconder only

on the confessional statements made by accused Nos. 1

and 2. There is no corroboration of any of the fact that

became attachable to the petitioner. Therefore, it becomes

an admitted fact that the petitioner is got into the web of crime

only on the confessional statements of the co-accused without

any spec of corroboration. In such circumstances, whether

further proceedings should be permitted against the petitioner is

required to be answered. The answer need not detain this Court

for long or delve deep into the matter.

10. The Apex Court in the case of Tofan Singh v. State of

Tamil Nadu has held as follows:

…. …. ….

158. We answer the reference by stating:

158.1. That 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

be taken into account in order to convict an accused

under the NDPS Act.

158.2. That a statement recorded under

Section 67 of the NDPS Act cannot be used as a

confessional statement in the trial of an offence

under the NDPS Act.”

(Emphasis supplied)

5

2024 SCC OnLine Kar. 4785

40

.

MASKED JUDGMENT by CaseOn: This document has been modified to redact sensitive

personal and financial identifiers pursuant to a Privacy Request. The non-essential

details of family members and financial accounts have been masked to prevent identity

theft and protect the privacy of private individuals.

The Apex Court in the case of State v. Pallulabid Ahmad

Arimutta has held as follows:

…. …. ….

11. Having gone through the records along with the

tabulated statement of the respondents submitted on behalf of

the petitioner NCB and on carefully perusing the impugned

orders [PallulabidAhamadArimutta v. State, 2019 SCC OnLine

Kar 3516], [Mohd. Afzal v. Union of India, 2020 SCC OnLine Kar

3433], [MuneesKavilParamabath v. State, 2020 SCC OnLine Kar

3431], [Abu Thahir v. State, 2019 SCC OnLine Kar 3517],

[Mohd. Afzal v. Union of India, 2020 SCC OnLine Kar 1294],

[MuneesKavilParambath v. State of Karnataka, 2020 SCC

OnLine Kar 3432] passed in each case, it emerges that except

for the voluntary statements of A-1 and A-2 in the first

case and that of the respondents themselves recorded

under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, it appears, prima facie,

that no substantial material was available with the

prosecution at the time of arrest to connect the

respondents with the allegations levelled against them of

indulging in drug trafficking. It has not been denied by the

prosecution that except for the respondent in SLP (Crl.) No.

1569 of 2021, none of the other respondents were found to be

in possession of commercial quantities of psychotropic

substances, as contemplated under the NDPS Act.

12. It has been held in clear terms in Tofan

Singh v. State of T.N. [Tofan Singh v. State of T.N., (2021) 4

SCC 1: (2021) 2 SCC (Cri) 246], that a confessional statement

recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act will remain

inadmissible in the trial of an offence under the NDPS Act. In

the teeth of the aforesaid decision, the arrests made by the

petitioner NCB, on the basis of the confession/voluntary

statements of the respondents or the co-accused under

Section 67 of the NDPS Act, cannot form the basis for

overturning the impugned orders [Pallulabid Ahamad

Arimutta v. State, 2019 SCC OnLine Kar 3516], [Mohd.

Afzal v. Union of India, 2020 SCC OnLine Kar 3433], [Munees

Kavil Paramabath v. State, 2020 SCC OnLine Kar 3431], [Abu

Thahir v. State, 2019 SCC OnLine Kar 3517], [Mohd.

Afzal v. Union of India, 2020 SCC OnLine Kar 1294], [Munees

41

.

MASKED JUDGMENT by CaseOn: This document has been modified to redact sensitive

personal and financial identifiers pursuant to a Privacy Request. The non-essential

details of family members and financial accounts have been masked to prevent identity

theft and protect the privacy of private individuals.

Kavil Parambath v. State of Karnataka, 2020 SCC OnLine Kar

3432] releasing them on bail. The CDR details of some of the

accused or the allegations of tampering of evidence on the part

of one of the respondents is an aspect that will be examined at

the stage of trial. For the aforesaid reason, this Court is not

inclined to interfere in the orders dated 16-9-2019 [Pallulabid

Ahamad Arimutta v. State, 2019 SCC OnLine Kar 3516], 14-1-

2020 [Mohd. Afzal v. Union of India, 2020 SCC OnLine Kar

3433], 16-1-2020 [Munees Kavil Paramabath v. State, 2020

SCC OnLine Kar 3431], 19-12-2019 [Abu Thahir v. State, 2019

SCC OnLine Kar 3517] and 20-1-2020 [Munees Kavil

Parambath v. State of Karnataka, 2020 SCC OnLine Kar 3432]

passed in SLP (Crl.) No. arising out of Diary No. 22702 of 2020,

SLP (Crl.) No. 1454 of 2021, SLP (Crl.) No. 1465 of 2021, SLPs

(Crl.) Nos. 1773-74 of 2021 and SLP (Crl.) No. 2080 of 2021

respectively. The impugned orders [Pallulabid Ahamad

Arimutta v. State, 2019 SCC OnLine Kar 3516], [Mohd.

Afzal v. Union of India, 2020 SCC OnLine Kar 3433], [Munees

Kavil Paramabath v. State, 2020 SCC OnLine Kar 3431], [Abu

Thahir v. State, 2019 SCC OnLine Kar 3517], [Mohd.

Afzal v. Union of India, 2020 SCC OnLine Kar 1294],

[MuneesKavil Parambath v. State of Karnataka, 2020 SCC

OnLine Kar 3432] are, accordingly, upheld and the special leave

petitions filed by the petitioner NCB seeking cancellation of bail

granted to the respective respondents, are dismissed as

meritless.”

(Emphasis supplied)

The Judgment in the case of Tofan Singh is reiterated

in Balwinder Singh v. Narcotics Control Bureau where the Apex

Court holds as follows:

…. …. ….

26. Now that it has been declared in Tofan Singh's

case (supra) that the judgments in the case of Kanhaiyalal

(supra) and Raj Kumar Karwal (supra) did not state the correct

legal position and they stand overruled, the entire case set up

by the prosecution against Balwinder Singh, collapses like a

House of cards. It is not in dispute that Balwinder Singh was

not apprehended by the NCB officials from the spot where the

naka was laid and that Satnam Singh alone was apprehended in

the Indica car. The version of the prosecution is that after

42

.

MASKED JUDGMENT by CaseOn: This document has been modified to redact sensitive

personal and financial identifiers pursuant to a Privacy Request. The non-essential

details of family members and financial accounts have been masked to prevent identity

theft and protect the privacy of private individuals.

Satnam Singh was arrested, his statement was recorded

under Section 67 of the NDPS Act wherein he ascribed a

specific role to the co-accused - Balwinder Singh and the

Sarpanch. The NCB officers claimed that they were on

the lookout for both of them since they had managed to

run away from the spot. While Sarpanch could not be

apprehended, the NCB officers learnt from reports in the

newspaper that Balwinder had been arrested by the

Amritsar Police in an NDPS case and was lodged in the

Central Jail, Amritsar. Permission was taken from the

concerned Court to take Balwinder Singh into custody in

the instant case and he was arrested. A notice was

served on him under Section 67 of the NDPS Act and his

statement was recorded. Treating his statement as a

confessional statement, Balwinder Singh was arrested.

27. Once the confessional statement of the co-accused,

Satnam Singh recorded by the NCB officers under Section 67 of

the NDPS Act, who had attributed a role to Balwinder Singh and

the subsequently recorded statement of Balwinder Singh

himself under Section 67 of the NDPS Act are rejected in the

light of the law laid down in Tofan Singh (supra), there is no

other independent incriminating evidence that has been

brought to the fore by the prosecution for convicting Balwinder

Singh under the NDPS Act. On ignoring the said confessional

statements & recorded before the officers of the NCB in the

course of the investigation, the vital link between Balwinder

Singh3 and the offence for which he has been charged snaps

conclusively and his conviction order cannot be sustained.

28. As a result of the above discussion, we are of the

opinion that Balwinder Singh deserves to be acquitted of the

charge of being in conscious possession of commercial quantity

of heroin under the NDPS Act. Ordered accordingly.

…. …. ….

31. Thus, it can be seen that the initial burden is cast on

the prosecution to establish the essential factors on which its

case is premised. After the prosecution discharges the said

burden, the onus shifts to the accused to prove his innocence.

However, the standard of proof required for the accused to

prove his innocence, is not pegged as high as expected of the

prosecution. In the words of Justice Sinha, who speaking for

the Bench in Noor Aga (supra), had observed that:

43

.

MASKED JUDGMENT by CaseOn: This document has been modified to redact sensitive

personal and financial identifiers pursuant to a Privacy Request. The non-essential

details of family members and financial accounts have been masked to prevent identity

theft and protect the privacy of private individuals.

“58. ……. Whereas the standard of proof required

to prove the guilt of the accused on the prosecution is

“beyond all reasonable doubt” but it is “preponderance of

probability” on the accused. If the prosecution fails to

prove the foundational facts so as to attract the rigours of

Section 35 of the Act, the actus reus which is possession of

contraband by the accused cannot be said to have been

established.”

32. The essence of the discussion in the captioned case

was that for attracting the provisions of Section 54 of the NDPS

Act, it is essential for the prosecution to establish the element

of possession of contraband by the accused for the burden to

shift to the accused to prove his innocence. This aspect of

possession of the contraband has to be proved by the

prosecution beyond reasonable doubt.”

(Emphasis supplied)

These judgments are again reiterated by the Apex Court

in FirdoskhanKhurshidkhan v. State of Gujarat holding as

follows:

…. …. ….

“23. Now, coming to the case of appellant

Firdoskhan(A-2) in Criminal Appeal No. 2044 of 2010.

24. It is not in dispute that the appellant

Firdoskhan(A-2) was not apprehended on the spot or at

the time of seizure. On a perusal of the

panchnama(Exhibit-30), it is evident that Firdoskhan is

not named therein. We find that even though

Anwarkhan(A-1) was present with the raiding team from

4.30 p.m onwards, no effort was made by any of the

NCB officials to make an inquiry from him regarding the

identity of his companion who allegedly fled away from

the spot.

25. The name of Firdoskhan(A-2) cropped

up for the first time in the statement of

Anwarkhan(A -1) recorded under Section 67 of

the NDPS Act. However, we are duly satisfied that

the sequence in which the said statement came to

be recorded completely discredits the reliability

thereof. Anwarkhan(A -1) was apprehended at the

bus stand with the packet of narcotic drug at

around 4 : 30 p.m. His signatures had been taken

44

.

MASKED JUDGMENT by CaseOn: This document has been modified to redact sensitive

personal and financial identifiers pursuant to a Privacy Request. The non-essential

details of family members and financial accounts have been masked to prevent identity

theft and protect the privacy of private individuals.

on the panchnama(Exhibit -30) prepared at 9 : 00

p.m. and thus, it does not stand to reason that the

Intelligence Officer would defer arresting

Anwarkhan(A -1) to a later point of time because,

as per the arrest memo(Exhibit-43) his arrest is

shown at 11 : 45 p.m. It seems that this deferment

in formal arrest of Anwarkhan(A -1) was only

shown in papers so that the Intelligence Officer

could record the statement of Anwarkhan(A -1)

under Section 67 of the NDPS Act and avoid the

same being hit by the rigours of Article 20(3) of

the Constitution of India.

26. The admissibility of a confessional

statement of the accused recorded under

Section 67 of the NDPS Act was examined by this

Court in the case of Tofan Singh (supra) and it was

laid down that such confessional statements are

not admissible in evidence.

27. Hence, the statement(Exhibit-42) of

Anwarkhan(A-1) wherein he allegedly identified the

appellant Firdoskhan(A-2) as the person who had

escaped from the spot cannot be read in evidence

against the appellant Firdoskhan(A-2) because the

manner in which the said statement was recorded leaves

much to be desired and creates a grave doubt on the

sanctity thereof, in addition to the same having

rendered inadmissible by virtue of Tofan Singh (supra).

28. The prosecution witness Deepak Pareek(PW-

2) claimed that Firdoskhan(A-2) was apprehended from

Shah Jahan Pur Police Station, Madhya Pradesh.

However, no document pertaining to the

apprehension/detention of appellant Firdoskhan(A-2) at

the Shah Jahan Pur Police Station was placed on record

by the prosecution. Thus, the very manner in which

the said accused was apprehended and brought to

the NCB Office at Ahmedabad in the purported

exercise of recording his statement under

Section 67 of the NDPS Act is full of doubt and

creates grave suspicion. Even otherwise, the

confession of the accused recorded under

Section 67 of the NDPS Act cannot be admitted in

evidence as a confession as had been held in the

case of Tofan Singh (supra). Hence the

confessional statement(Exhibit-42) does not lend

45

.

MASKED JUDGMENT by CaseOn: This document has been modified to redact sensitive

personal and financial identifiers pursuant to a Privacy Request. The non-essential

details of family members and financial accounts have been masked to prevent identity

theft and protect the privacy of private individuals.

any succour to the prosecution in its quest to

prove the charges against the accused

Firdoskhan(A-2).”

(Emphasis supplied)

11. On a coalesce of the judgments rendered by the

Apex Court as quoted hereinabove, what would

unmistakably emerge is that, the proceedings against the

petitioner cannot be permitted to be continued, as there

is not an iota of corroboration that would pin the

petitioner to the offences, except the

voluntary/confessional statements of the co-accused i.e.,

accused Nos. 1 and 2, recorded under Section 67 of the

Act, which is clearly hit by Section 25 of the Evidence Act,

as is considered by the Apex Court on an interplay

between Section 25 of the Evidence Act and Section 67 of

the Act. Permitting further proceedings against the

petitioner who at any point in time was not alleged to be

involved in any crime except in the aforesaid statements,

would become an abuse of the process of law and result

in patent injustice. The petitioner, who is a student

pursuing his Masters elsewhere, beyond the shores of the

nation, should not be made to suffer for the

voluntary/confessional statements of the co-accused.”

(Emphasis supplied)

On a blend of the judgments rendered by the Apex Court as

quoted hereinabove, which also bear consideration in the order

passed by this Court as afore-quoted and the unequivocal fact that

the petitioner/ accused No.3 is drawn into the web of proceedings

only on the voluntary / confession statement of the accused, further

proceedings if permitted to continue would become an abuse of the

46

.

MASKED JUDGMENT by CaseOn: This document has been modified to redact sensitive

personal and financial identifiers pursuant to a Privacy Request. The non-essential

details of family members and financial accounts have been masked to prevent identity

theft and protect the privacy of private individuals.

process of law and result in miscarriage of justice. In that light I

deem it appropriate to obliterate the proceedings against the

petitioner.

10. Insofar as the judgment relied on by the learned

Additional Solicitor General, there can be no qualm about the

principles so laid down by the Apex Court in the case of

MUNIAPPAN v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU – (2010) 9 SCC 567;

HEMA v. STATE – (2013) 10 SCC 192; NEEHARIKA

INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED v. STATE OF

MAHARASHTRA – 2021 SCC OnLine SC 315; CBI v. ARYAN

SINGH – (2023) 18 SCC 399; and MR.KALAM NARENDRA v.

UNION OF INDIA – W.P.No.8449 of 2024 decided on 27-05-2024.

The said judgments are rendered in the facts obtaining in those

cases and all relate to interference at the hands of this Court under

Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., or BNSS and insofar as the judgment of

High Court of Delhi in bail application in the case of VAIBHAV

YADAV (supra) is concerned, it though has a persuasive value, it

would not persuade this Court, what this Court has held following

the judgment of the coordinate bench.

47

.

MASKED JUDGMENT by CaseOn: This document has been modified to redact sensitive

personal and financial identifiers pursuant to a Privacy Request. The non-essential

details of family members and financial accounts have been masked to prevent identity

theft and protect the privacy of private individuals.

11. For the aforesaid reasons, the following:

O R D E R

(i) Criminal petition is allowed.

(ii) Proceedings in Special C.C.No.2932 of 2023 pending

before the XXXIII Additional City Civil and Sessions

Judge and Special Judge for NDPS Cases at Bangalore,

arising out of NCB Crime No.48/1/24/2023/BZU of

Narcotics Control Bureau stand quashed qua the

petitioner.

(iii) It is made clear that the observations made in the

course of the order are only for the purpose of

consideration of the case of the petitioner under Section

482 of Cr.P.C. and the same shall not bind or influence

the proceedings against any other accused pending

before the concerned Court.

nvj

CT:SS

Sd/-

(M.NAGAPRASANNA)

JUDGE