IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that confessions require corroboration to be admissible, and insufficient evidence can warrant bail despite the NDPS Act's stringent provisions.

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.2824/2024 were dismissed as not pressed by this Court vide order dated 01.05.2024 but a liberty was granted to the petitioner to approach this Court again recording the statement of Seizure Officer. Now, the Seizing Officer Raju Singh has been examined in the trial as P.W. 2. Hence, the instant application for bail.

3. In nutshell the facts of the case are that on 08.10.2023 during patrolling on the National Highway 27, Raju Singh SHO, Police Station Pindwara along with his police team intercepted a Swift Car bearing registration No.RJ27-CL0029. Upon interrogation, the driver of the said vehicle disclosed his name to be Pukhraj and stated that he is carrying bags of groundnuts but during search, 7 bags containing poppy husk were recovered from the back seat and dickey of the Car. The weight of these bags was 87 Kg. Pukhraj further disclosed that he and Dinesh went to Sangariya Dugla for carrying poppy husk. The recovered contraband was marked and seized and whereafter, the same was sent to the FSL for its chemical examination. The accused Jagdish Chandra was arrested and a case under Section 8/15 of the NDPS Act was registered against him.

4. It is contended on behalf of the accused-petitioner that the petitioner is arrested in this 02.11.2023 on the basis of statement of principal 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.

5. 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.

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

7. Perusal of the record revealing that the petitioner is behind the bars in this case since 02.11.2023. The petitioner was not present at the time of alleged recovery and nothing has been recovered at his instance. He has been arraigned as an accused only on the basis of confession statement made by the co-accused Pukhraj, when he was subjected to interrogation. Petitioner has been arrested in this case only on the premise that he was in contact with Dinesh. Interestingly, accused Dinesh has yet not been arrested and no evidence has been produced on the record which could connect the petitioner and the accused Dinesh. Further out of 14 witnesses, only two witnesses have been examined.

8. 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.

9. It has been held by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of Mohd. Inayatullah Vs. State of M