Point of Law : . It is needless to say that any observations, particularly observation with regard to admissibility of confessional statement before trial shall not influence the trial judge so as to adversely affect the rights of either of parties.

JUDGMENT :

1. The instant bail application has been filed by the petitioner Prahlad S/o Shri Radheshyam Parikh under Section 439 Cr.P.C against the order impugned dated passed by learned court below in connection with FIR No.153/2022 registered at Police Station Dhamotar, District Pratapgarh for the offences under Sections 8/22 and 29 of NDPS Act.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a false case has been foisted against the petitioner. He has nothing to do with the alleged offences and no useful purpose would be served by keeping him behind the bars. The charge against the petitioner for his alleged act of his being the alleged future recipient of the contraband. He have been made accused on the strength of confessional statement made by the co-accused during police custody which is otherwise not admissible in evidence by virtue of Sections 25 and 26 of Indian Evidence Act. The said disclosure statement does not come within the ambit of Section 27 of Indian Evidence Act. He submits that for booking an accused for the accusation of the offence committed under Section 29 of the NDPS Act, there must be some corroborative evidence. Since nothing is there on record from which involvement of the accused can be presumed, therefore, the embargo under Section 37 of the NDPS Act do not come in way of releasing the petitioner on bail.

3. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposes the bail application on the ground that the recovered contraband weighed 17 Grams in total and that is way above the commercial quantity demarcated for MDMA and therefore, in view of the bar contained under Section 37 of NDPS Act, no case of bail is made out.

4. Heard. Perused the material available on record.

5. It is alleged that the said accused Govind disclosed this fact to the I.O. that the present petitioner is the future recipient of the contraband MDMA. Upon receiving the information from co-accused Govind, the present petitioner was booked and arrested in the matter. Except disclosure statement made to the police in custody by the principal accused, there is no other evidence, direct or indirect to substantiate the charge against the petitioner.

6. The Privy Council in the case of Pulukuri Kotayya Vs. Emperor reported in AIR (1947) PC 67 discussed the provision stipulated under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. The relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced herein as under:

"It is fallacious to treat the 'fact discovered' within the section as equivalent to the object produced; the fact discovered embraces the place from which the object is produced and the knowledge of the accused as to this, and the information given must relate distinctly to this fact. Information as to past user, or the past history, of the object produced is not related to its discovery in the setting in which it is discovered. Information supplied by a person in custody that 'I will produce a knife concealed in the roof of my house' does not lead to the discovery of a knife; knives were discovered many years ago. It leads to the discovery of the fact that a knife is concealed in the house of the informant to his knowledge, and if the knife is proved to have been used in the commission of the offence, the fact discovered is very relevant. But if to the statement the words be added 'with which I stabbed A'., these words are inadmissible since they do not relate to the discovery of the knife in the house of the informant."

7. The observations of the Privy Counsel in the case of Pulukuri Kotayya (supra) stand accepted by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of Prabhoo Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, reported in AIR (1963) SC 113 and then, it has been reiterated/referred in a catena of legal pronouncements.

8. In this regard, we may refer to Sangappa Basalingappa Rabasetty Versus State of Karnataka reported in Criminal Appeal No.37/1982 where in it was held as under:-

“The confessions made to the police are irrelevant and inadmissible in evidence under Sections 24, 25 an