IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
Farjand Ali, J.
Sumit S/o Sh. Ramniwas - Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through PP - Respondent
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 2nd Bail Application No. 2886 of 2023
Decided On : 29-03-2023
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 439 - Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Sections 8, 21, 29, 37 - Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 24, 25, 26, 27 - Bail application - Contraband was recovered from his possession - Bail application has been filed by petitioner – Deprivation of a person from his fundamental right to liberty must be based on solid and cogent grounds.
Finding of the Court :
Court is of firm opinion that there must be some direct or indirect evidence to continue detention of a person where provisions pertaining to sentence are stringent and rule of jurisprudence is that “graver charges, greater has to be standard of proof” - Deprivation of a person from his fundamental right to liberty must be based on solid and cogent grounds - Upon consideration of arguments advanced, at this stage of infancy of trial, Court refrains from passing any comments over nature of accusation and quality of evidence yet it is of opinion that petitioner deserves to be enlarged on bail - It is ordered that accused shall be enlarged on bail.
Result: Application allowed.
ORDER :
1. The instant bail application has been filed by the petitioner Sumit S/o Sh. Ramniwas under Section 439 Cr.P.C against the order impugned passed by learned court below in connection with FIR No.108/2022, registered at Police Station Dangiawas, District Jodhpur(east), for the offences under Sections 8/21 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. It is the admitted case of the prosecution that neither the petitioner was found present at the crime scene nor any incriminating material or contraband was recovered from his possession. Learned counsel submits that if at the time of effecting the recovery, the principal accused would have disclosed regarding the complicity of the petitioner then it would have been a different situation because instantaneous and spontaneous disclosure regarding alleged transaction may come within the premise of doctrine of res gestae but no such thing was disclosed by the principal accused at that moment in time; the alleged disclosure statement was said to have been made by the principal accused, who stated to the police regarding involvement of the petitioner, but except his confession, nothing has been recovered or discovered, therefore, the contents of the said information cannot be taken into evidence as the same is beyond the arena of Section 27 of the 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. 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. It has been propounded by the Privy Council in the case of Pulukuri Kottaya & Ors. Vs. Emperor (AIR 1947 PC 67) that since nothing was discovered or recovered, the disclosure statement made while in custody which distinctly connects the accused-petitioners with the commission of the crime cannot betaken as an admissible piece of evidence. He further submits that after investigation, charge sheet has been filed and the entire charge sheet does not have an iota of evidence against the petitioner except the aforesaid confession, for which, further incarceration of the petitioner cannot be allowed. Since nothing is there on record from which involvement of the accused can be presumed, therefore, the condition under Section 37 of the NDPS Act do not come in way of releasing the petitioners on bail.
3. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application on the ground that contraband smack weighing 14 grams and contraband MDMA weighing 218 grams were recovered at the instance of co-accused persons which were sold to them by the petitioner. The recovered contraband MDMA is way above the demarcated commercial quantity.
4. Heard and perused the material available on record. Coming to the question of the ban contained in Section 37 of NDPS Act, it is mandated that untill fulfillment of the twin conditions of this section, bail should not be granted. The first condition is that the prosecution must be given an opportunity to oppose the application; and the second is that the Court must be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such an offence. As far as the contemplation of the first condition is concerned, ample and reasonable opportunity has been sufficiently afforded to the prosecution to protest the bail plea as well as to ensure the completion of trial expeditiously. This court is of the view that at least there must be some corroborations or support to verify the confession made by the principal accused to the Police O
Section 27 of Evidence Act is applicable only if confessional statement leads to discovery of some new fact.
In order to apply Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, only the components which are essential or were the cause of the discovery would be considered to be legal evidence.
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....
Confessions of co-accused require corroborative evidence to be admissible; without it, bail may be granted.
The court established that a mere confession by a co-accused, without corroborative evidence or recovery, is insufficient to deny bail, and that the interpretation of Section 37 of the NDPS Act must ....
The court established that for bail under the NDPS Act, there must be corroborative evidence beyond confessions to justify detention.
The court emphasized that mere confessions without corroborative evidence cannot justify detention, highlighting the importance of personal liberty.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.