Beeru @ Abhishek Singh v. State Of Uttar Pradesh And 3 Others
Case at a glance
- Bench
- SALIL KUMAR RAI, ZAFEER AHMAD
Outcome
Dismissed
The petition is dismissed
Provisions considered
- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ss. 8, 20
- Indian Evidence Act, 1872 s. 30
- Constitution of India art. 226
Judgment
Srivastava, Yashveer Yadav Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A. Court No. - 45 HON'BLE SALIL KUMAR RAI, J. HON'BLE ZAFEER AHMAD, J. The present petition has been filed challenging the first information report dated 31.08.2025 registering Case Crime No. 0090 of 2025, under Section 8/20 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Police Station-Dheena, District-Chandauli. It has been argued by the counsel for the petitioner that he has been implicated in the case only on the basis of confession of a co-accused. In support of his contention the counsel for the petitioner has relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Hari Charan Kurmi And Jogia Hajam vs State of Bihar. The counsel for the petitioner neither supplied the citation of the judgment, nor a copy of the said judgment to the Court. It has been further argued that the quantity of narcotics referred in the first information report is a small quantity and the punishment is only for one year and the same has also been recovered from the co-accused.
It has been further argued that an interim protection has been granted to the co-accused by a co- ordinate Bench of this Court. On all the aforesaid grounds, the counsel for the petitioner supports the reliefs prayed in the present petition. The interim order passed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court protecting the co-accused does not create a binding precedent. It is not the case of the counsel for the petitioner that the writ petition filed by the co-accused has been allowed with the protection. The petition of the co-accused is still pending in this Court. The First Information Report discloses commission of an offence. For the aforesaid reason the first information report cannot be quashed. Interim protection is only in furtherance of the final relief. In case no final relief can be granted there is no question of granting any interim protection 2 CRLP No. 20779 of 2025 to the petitioner. The confession of a co-accused can be read in evidence subject to the requirements of Section 30 Indian Evidence Act/Section 24 Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023.
Operative part
In any case, confession of a co-accused is part of the investigation and the Investigating Officer cannot be denied the power to proceed with the investigation of a case on the statements or confessions made by the co-accused. The said ground can not be a cause to quash the first information report or for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution. The petitioner has the remedy to apply for bail in case he is arrested or for any other relief available to him in law. It is not a fit case for quashing of the first information report and for the same reason to grant interim protection to the petitioner. The petition is dismissed. September 16, 2025 Ranjeet Sahu (Zafeer Ahmad,J.) (Salil Kumar Rai,J.) RANJEET SAHU High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: The petition is dismissed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — ss. 8, 20; Indian Evidence Act, 1872 — s. 30; Constitution of India — art. 226.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.