Dilip Kumar Veerwani v. State of Chhattisgarh

: Shri Aakash Singh, Advocate For Respondent : Shri Anand Gupta, Deputy Government Advocate and Shri Aman Tamboli, Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput Order on Board 28/07/2026

1. This application under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) has been filed by the applicant seeking regular bail as he is in custody in connection with Crime No.954 of 2022 dated 12.9.2022 registered at Police 2 Station Civil Lines, District Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) for offence punishable under Sections 21, 22 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short ‘NDPS Act’)

2. Case of the prosecution, in nutshell, is that on 12.9.2022 near about 15:50 hours police got information from their informant that one person is having white bag (thaila) and has kept prohibited cough syrup for sale. On the said information, police made entries in Rojnamcha and arrested Dharmendra Gendle. In his memorandum statement, he took the name of Dilip Bhau. After that, on 14.9.2022, notice was issued to the present applicant, but, he was not found and, therefore, police declared him absconded. On 16.3.2026, the applicant was arrested on the basis of the aforesaid memorandum statement.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent. He has been falsely implicated in the case. He runs a small medical shop at Katni (Madhya Pradesh). He has been narrated as an accused in the aforesaid crime only on the basis of the confessional statement made by co-accused, namely, Dharmendra Gendle, who was found in possession of the contraband. Learned counsel further submits that after a full fledged trial, co-accused Dharmendra Gendle was acquitted by the Special Judge (NDPS), Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) in Special Sessions (NDPS) Case No.11 of 2023 by judgment dated

14.5.2026. He submits that the present applicant was never served with any show cause notice by police and suddenly he was arrested and sent to judicial custody. He submits that there is no admissible evidence available against the applicant and 3 police has recorded confessional statement of the applicant which is inadmissible in evidence. He placed reliance upon the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Tofan Singh v. State of Tamilnadu, (2021) 4 SCC 1, Surinder Kumar Khanna v. Intelligence Officer, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, (2018) 8 SCC 271, Sujit Tiwari v. State of Gujarat, (2020) 13 SCC 447 and the decisions of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the cases of Ishwar v. State of M.P., 2022 SCC OnLine MP 125 and Ismail Khan v. State of M.P. and other connected matters, 2019 SCC OnLine MP 944 and contended that confessional statement of the co- accused is not admissible against the applicant and, therefore, possibility of conviction of the applicant is much less.

4. Though the present applicant had a criminal antecedent of the year 2005 in which he was acquitted by the learned Special Judge under the NDPS Act, Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) in Special NDPS Case No.35 of 2005 by judgment dated 27.11.2014, there is no other connecting material to suggest that co-accused Dharmendra Gendle purchased the contraband from the present applicant.

5. Opposing the above submissions made on behalf of the applicant, learned counsel appearing for the State submit that when co-accused Dharmendra Gendle was arrested, he made a confessional statement that the psychotropic cough syrup was purchased by the present applicant. Apart from this, the applicant avoided arrest and he was absconding. Later on, he was arrested and gave a confessional statement under Section 4 67 of the NDPS Act in which he has admitted that he has sold the contraband cough syrup. Thus, it is submitted that the bar under Section 37 of the NDPS Act would come into play and the bail application deserves to be rejected.

6. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary with due care.

7. The case of the prosecution is that when they received the secret information that one person (acquitted co-accused) was keeping prohibited cough syrup, they apprehended and arrested him and his confessional statement was recorded in which he stated that the said cough syrup was purchased by him from one Dilip Bhau. It is to be noted here that the name of the seller was stated to be Dilip Bhau not Dilip Kumar Veerwani (the present applicant). On the basis of which, the present applicant was arrested who gave a confessional statement that he has sold the intoxicating drug. Apart from this, there is no cogent evidence available in the case diary which could show any connection of the applicant with the aforesaid crime. Even an investigation has not been carried out in respect of origin of the cough syrup and later on its distribution and reaching the same to the shop of the present applicant. The only evidence which appears to be used against the applicant is the statement of the co-accused and the confessional statement made by the applicant himself.

8. The other ground which has been raised is that the present applicant had a criminal antecedent. Admittedly, the said criminal antecedent was of the year 2005 in which the applicant had been acquitted in the year 2014. 5

9. Thus, taking into consideration the evidence available on record and the decisions made in the supra cases, this Court is of the opinion that the applicant has been able to make out a case to come out of the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act. The applicant is in jail since 16.3.2026 and the trial is likely to take some time.

10. Accordingly, the present application for grant of regular bail is allowed. It is directed that the applicant be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000 (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) along with one solvent surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned Trial Court on the following conditions that – (a) He shall appear before the Trial Court regularly on each and every date, unless exempted from appearance, (b) He shall not make any attempt to tamper with the prosecution witnesses.

11. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on merits of the case and the observations made above are only for the purpose of deciding the present bail application. Gopal Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) JUDGE