The court established that confessions require corroboration to be admissible for bail considerations, particularly under the NDPS Act.

ORDER :

FARJAND ALI, J.

1. The jurisdiction of this court has been invoked by way of filing the instant third 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 and second bail applications being SBCRLMB Nos.8165/2022 & 9856/2022 were dismissed by this Court vide orders dated 26.05.2022 & 04.11.2023. Hence, the instant application for bail.

3. In nutshell the facts of the case are that on 18.07.2018 Ranjeet Kumar Barnwal, IO, NDPS, Jodhpur received as secret information on the basis of which on 19.07.2018 a White Swift Car bearing registration No.GJ08AJ5353 was intercepted. The said car was driven by Suresh Kumar and Naresh Kumar was sitting by his side. Upon conducting search, total 42.186 Kg opium was recovered from the bonat and bumper of the said car. Both Suresh Kumar and Naresh Kumar were apprehended and a case for under Section 8/18, 8/25 & 8/29 of the NDPS Act was registered against them.

4. It is contended on behalf of the accused-petitioner that the petitioner is arrested in this 02.12.2021 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 02.12.2021. 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. P.W. 5 Bhagwan Shahay Meena, stated in his statement that at the relevant point of time he was posted as Junior Intelligence Officer, NDPS Unit at Jodhpur, he specifically stated at page 3 of his statement that during investigation, he found nothing against the petitioner regarding illegal transportation of the alleged contraband.

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 portions which were the