IMPORTANT POINT
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 allow for the possibility of bail to uphold the right to personal liberty.

ORDER :

(Farjand Ali, J.) :

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

2. His first bail application being SBCRLMB No.5095/2023 came to be dismissed as not pressed by this Court vide order dated 08.02.2024 with liberty to file fresh bail application after recording the statement of Investigating Officer. Now the statement of Investigating Officer has been recorded.. Hence, the instant application for bail.

3. In nutshell the facts of the case are that on 11.04.2021 Sarita Vishnoi, SHO Police Station Ramseen, District Jalore during nakabandi intercepted an Alto Car bearing registration No. RJ06 CA7552 and upon interrogation the driver disclosed his name as Mukesh Teli at the same time, when this process was under progress, another unnumbered Car, on seeing nakabandi, the driver along with two others left the car in abandoned condition and ran away from the spot but near the Punak Kala, the police apprehended its driver, who disclosed his name to be Shravan, another one was Rakesh and regarding third person Shravan told that he is the resident of Madhya Pradesh except this he knew nothing about him. Upon search of the vehicle, 10 bags weighing 95.860 poppy husk were recovered and during investigation it came to know that the vehicle was registered in the name of one Krishan Kumar @ Rakesh and Raju Lal had loaded drugs in the said vehicle. On the basis of the above, a case under Section 8/15, 29 of the NDPS Act came to registered against accused Shravan and under Section 8/15, 29, 25 of the NDPS Act against the accused Mukesh and investigation is kept pending under Section 173 (8) of the Cr.P.C. against the accused Raju Lal and Krishan Kumar and they were taken in judicial custody.

4. It is contended on behalf of the accused-petitioner that the petitioner is arrested in this 16.09.2022 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 16.09.2022. He has been made accused on the basis of statement of co-accused. Neither the present petitioner was present at the spot nor any recovery has been affected from his possession. P.W. 6 Avadesh Shandhu, stated in his statement that on 30.06.2022, he was posted as SHO Ramseen and during investigation petitioner has been made accused on the basis of statement of co-accused although he was not present at the time of alleged recovery and nothing was recovered at his instance.

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