IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that the absence of direct evidence linking an accused to a crime, along with prolonged incarceration without trial, can justify the granting of bail under Section 439 CrPC, despite the restrictions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act.

ORDER :

FARJAND ALI, J.

1. The jurisdiction of this court has been invoked by way of filing the instant bail application under Section 439 CrPC at the instance of accused-petitioner. The requisite details of the matter are tabulated herein below:

2. In nutshell the facts of the case are that on 09.04.2023 SHO, PS Mohangarh, District Jaisalmer received as secret information and on the basis of which intercepted a Bolera Car bearing registration No.RJ05 UA0297. The said car was driven by Amar Lal. Upon conducting search, total 525 gram heroin was recovered from the said vehicle. Thereafter, Amar Lal was arrested and upon interrogation he disclosed that he purchased the said contraband from one Ramchandra. The police team reached at the residence of Ramchandra and upon being searched, 520 grams heroin came to be recovered and accused Ramchandra was also arrested. A case for under Section 8/21 & 8/29 of the NDPS Act was registered against them.

3. It is contended on behalf of the accused-petitioner that the petitioner is arrested in this on the basis of statement of co-accused, however he was not present at the spot thus, no case for the alleged offences is made out against him and his incarceration is not warranted. There are no factors at play in the case at hand that may work against grant of bail to the accused-petitioner and he has been made an accused based on conjectures and surmises.

4. Contrary to the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor opposes the bail application and submits that the present case is not fit for enlargement of accused on bail.

5. Have considered the submissions made by both the parties and have perused the material available on record.

6. Perusal of the record revealing that the petitioner is behind the bars in this case since for more than a year. He has been accused on the basis of statement of principal accused and exchange of some calls between them. Neither the present petitioner was present at the spot nor any recovery has been affected from his possession. It is further revealing that the incident is of April, 2023 and two calls were made by accused Amar Lal to the present petitioner firstly in the month of January and secondly in the month of February but to prove the nature of communication, no text or message or any other incriminating material is available on record so as to connect the petitioner with the alleged recovery.

7. If it is an information under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, something is required to be recovered or discovered in pursuance of the information supplied under Section 27 of the Evidence Act which distinctly relates to the commission of the crime. It is the admitted case of prosecution that in pursuance of the information furnished under Section 27 of the Evidence Act regarding the culpability of the petitioner, nothing new was disclosed, recovered or discovered. This court is of the view that at least there must be some corroborations or support to verify the confession made by the accused to the Police Officer while in lockup.

8. It has been held by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of Mohd. Inayatullah Vs. State of Maharastra, reported in AIR 1976 SC 483 that 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. The relevant paragraph of the judgment reads as under:-

“For the application of Section 27 the statement must be split into its components and to separate the admission portion. Only those components or p