Judge U B Pethe, remanded Sandeep Indrajit Tiwari (Uttar Pradesh) to Magisterial Custody in the crime registered after police claimed a major haul of MEFPHEDRONE drugs ( MD ) OF 1 KG 911 gms, valued at 1 crore 91 lacs ten thousand. The prosecution had claimed that on 3rd march Kunal Gabhane and Gaurav Kaleshwarrao i.e. accused persons were apprehended by Sonegaon Police in the morning hours and upon their confessional statements, accused no 3 and 4 i.e. Nandkishor Kumbhalkar and Akshay Yeole were arrested on the same day at 9-30 in the night. Prosecution claimed that as per the confession of accused no 3 and 4, accused no 5 and 6 i.e. Pankaj Charde and Akram Khadde were arrested on 8th March at 4-26 am from Goa. Lastly the prosecution contended that on the confessional statement of accused no 5 and 6 , accused no 7 Sandeep Tiwari was arrested from Tatdine, Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh.
Going by the version of the prosecution, the investigating officer claimed that accused no 7 Sandeep Tiwari was the kingpin of the entire drug mafia and that the said accused used to prepare the said drug on his own and supply it to various vendors and in return, the vendors used to transfer huge sum of amounts in the bank accounts of the employees of Sandeep and / or they used to indirectly siphon off the money to themselves. It was contended that Sandeep was the kingpin mafia and the sole person who was dealing in these kinds of illegalities.
Prosecution sought police custody remand of the accused for another 5 days by contending that investigation was at preliminary stage and that various aspects had to be covered from various spheres to ascertain and find out how and through whom the drugs were being transported and sold in open market. Refuting the arguments of the prosecution, Advocate Prakash Naidu appearing on behalf of the said Kingpin Sandeep tiwari vehemently argued that the arrests as had been made by the investigating machinery were absurd and squarely on the genesis of absolute wrong and baseless premises, on account of the fact that the prosecution claimed that since accused no 1 and 2 and subsequently other accused persons admitted their involvement, they too are liable, whereas, infact, the confessional statements as had been made and as had been recorded, was not in compliance of the NDPS Act and was contrary to the soul and spirit of section 62, 42, 57 evidence act.
Adv Naidu argued that no confession could’ve been obtained by the police officer from the accused in criminal case in view o the bar contemplated u/s 24 and 25 of the evidence act . It was argued that the police official allege to have visited the house of accused no 7 Sandeep and have claimed to have recovered one thar jeep and nothing incriminating which could connect the accused with the culpability of the alleged crime. However they have deliberately flouted the mandated aspect of handing over a copy of search report to the family members of accused.
As such it was argued that even assuming but not admitting the confessions to be true, the accused persons could not be arrested on the basis of the said confession as the said confession is hit by law and any such confession in police custody is not to be acted upon and such confession cannot lead to any conviction. Adv Naidu argued that granting police custody remand on the genesis of such alleged confession was violative of not only Art 14 but also of Art 20(3) of the constitution and the rights which flow in favour of the accused and which have been guaranteed by the constitution. Appreciating the arguments, the learned Judge U B Pethe rejected the prayer of the prosecution for police remand and sent the accused persons to Magisterial Custody in central jail.
Advocate Prakash Naidu, Homesh Chauhan, Mitesh Bais and Surabhi Naidu ( Godbole ) appeared for the accused Sandeep Tiwari. App held the brief for the state.