<p>The Karnataka high court has granted bail to an accused in a drugs case by relying upon a Supreme Court ruling on the confessional statements made to police. </p>.<p>In Tofan Singh vs State of Tamil Nadu, the Supreme Court ruled that any confessional statement made to police officers is barred under section 25 of the Evidence Act and cannot be taken into account to convict an accused in a case under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act. </p>.<p>Shivaraj Urs, in judicial custody since May 2019 in a case registered by the Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB), approached the high court for the fourth time seeking bail. His previous bail petitions were rejected in October 2019, May 2020 and July 2020. </p>.<p>In the fourth petition, his counsel Hashmath Pasha relied upon the case of Tofan Singh, in which the Supreme Court held that the officers with powers under section 53 of the NDPS Act are police officers within the meaning of section 25 of the Evidence Act. Therefore, any confessional statement made to them would be barred under section 25 of the Evidence Act and it cannot be considered to convict an accused under the NDPS Act. </p>.<p>The counsel argued that in the light of the apex court ruling, statements recorded under section 67 of the NDPS Act are nothing but statements under section 161 of the CrPC and cannot be used by the prosecution for any purpose. </p>.<p>Hearing the arguments, Justice P S Dinesh Kumar granted Urs bail by considering two aspects: the law laid down in the Tofan Singh case and on the grounds of parity since two accused in the case have already released on bail. The court ordered Urs to furnish a Rs 5 lakh personal bond and two sureties for the like sum with conditions. </p>
<p>The Karnataka high court has granted bail to an accused in a drugs case by relying upon a Supreme Court ruling on the confessional statements made to police. </p>.<p>In Tofan Singh vs State of Tamil Nadu, the Supreme Court ruled that any confessional statement made to police officers is barred under section 25 of the Evidence Act and cannot be taken into account to convict an accused in a case under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act. </p>.<p>Shivaraj Urs, in judicial custody since May 2019 in a case registered by the Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB), approached the high court for the fourth time seeking bail. His previous bail petitions were rejected in October 2019, May 2020 and July 2020. </p>.<p>In the fourth petition, his counsel Hashmath Pasha relied upon the case of Tofan Singh, in which the Supreme Court held that the officers with powers under section 53 of the NDPS Act are police officers within the meaning of section 25 of the Evidence Act. Therefore, any confessional statement made to them would be barred under section 25 of the Evidence Act and it cannot be considered to convict an accused under the NDPS Act. </p>.<p>The counsel argued that in the light of the apex court ruling, statements recorded under section 67 of the NDPS Act are nothing but statements under section 161 of the CrPC and cannot be used by the prosecution for any purpose. </p>.<p>Hearing the arguments, Justice P S Dinesh Kumar granted Urs bail by considering two aspects: the law laid down in the Tofan Singh case and on the grounds of parity since two accused in the case have already released on bail. The court ordered Urs to furnish a Rs 5 lakh personal bond and two sureties for the like sum with conditions. </p>
