JUDGMENT :

RAJENDRA PRAKASH SONI, J.

1. Present petition under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is for grant of regular bail in case bearing FIR No. 697/2022 under Section 8/15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short “the Act”) registered at Police Station Sangaria, District Hanumangarh.

2. Let me give a very brief factual backdrop to understand the entire matter in the right perspective which are that the S.H.O., Police Station Sangaria has filed a challan, along with other co accused, against the present petitioner for the offence punishable under section 8/15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (in short “the Act”) in the court. As per the prosecution story, on 26.11.2022, a police party was on routine patrol duty on Rassuwala Road. It was found that a truck having registration number RJ 06 GB 3073 is parked on the road with a pick up vehicle and a car parked next to it. Two occupants were found in the vehicle. Person, who was on the driver seat of the vehicle, disclosed his name as Mangi Lal and another occupant of the vehicle disclosed his name as Kanhaiya Lal Kir. Their body language was found suspicious on which police conducted the search of the vehicle and recovered 41 bags which contained 822 Kgs. of poppy straw.

3. Thereafter, the police completed all other the formalities. FIR was registered against the petitioner and the co-accused. The petitioner and the co-accused were arrested and during the course of interrogation they revealed many facts in respect of contraband recovered. According to the prosecution story, driver Mangilal Kir and helper Kanyalal Kir son of Heera Lal revealed that the recovered contraband was bought by Kanhaiyalal alias Kanha Jat son of Hardev Jat and Jagdish from a person named Labhu Banjara. Rohitash Jakhar, Ashwini Kumar and Manoj came to the spot with a pickup and a car to take delivery, who fled away on seeing the police party. As per the police, challan stands presented in the learned Trial Court.

4. This Court has carefully perused the record as well as considered the submissions made by learned counsels for the parties.

5. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case; that the sole evidence on which prosecution relies upon to prosecute the petitioner is the confessional statement of the co-accused made under section 67 of the Act, which is inadmissible in evidence for any purpose whatsoever. In the charge-sheet, the Investigating Agency has concluded that the said narcotic contraband was to be supplied to the petitioner. It is argued that the said conclusion has been arrived at by the police on the basis of the information supplied by co-accused Mangi Lal and Kanhaiya Lal Kir while in police custody. They both were found on spot.

6. The petitioner is resident of the place and neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice. He has argued that no fruitful purpose will be served by keeping the petitioner behind the bars for an unlimited period, especially when the investigation is complete, the challan stands presented in the Court. The petitioner cannot be kept behind the bars for an unlimited period, especially when the investigation is complete, challan stands presented in the Court. Therefore, the application may be allowed and the petitioner be enlarged on bail.

7. Conversely, the learned counsel for the State has argued that the petitioner was found involved in a serious offence, so at this stage, in case he is enlarged on bail, he may tamper with the prosecution evidence and may also flee from justice. The information given by co accused is admissible and relevant for proceeding against the accused named by him. He thus, craves rejection of the petitioner's bail application urging that there is ample material on record to connect him with the huge quantity of poppy straw recovered in the case at