IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that confessions from co-accused require corroboration to justify detention, emphasizing the importance of evidence in bail considerations under the NDPS Act.

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. In nutshell the facts of the case are that on 17.10.2023, during patrolling Shri Rajendra Kumar, SI, PS Pur District Bhilwara along with his team intercepted a Mahindra Pick-up and upon suspicion stopped the said vehicle. Upon interrogation, the driver disclosed his name as Bhanwar Lal Bishnoi and another person sitting with him disclosed his name as Sita Ram Acharya. When the search was conducted 13 plastic bags weighing 248 .5 Kg poppy husk got recovered. Whereupon, both were arrested and during their custody stated that the said contraband was given to him by the present petitioner in cahoot with one Ramkishan. On the basis of the above disclosure statement, the petitioner has been booked in this case as an accused and a case under Sections 815, 8/29 & 8/25 of the NDPS Act has been lodged against the petitioner.

3. It is contended on behalf of the accused-petitioner that the petitioner is arrested in this case on 18.10.2023 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.

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 18.10.2023. The petitioner was not present at the time of alleged recovery and nothing incriminating has been recovered at his instance; He has been arraigned as an accused only on the basis of confessional statements made by the co-accused Bhanwar Lal and Sita Ram. It is pertinent to note here that besides the above disclosure statements, there is no other material on record to show or suggest the connectivity of the petitioner either with the contraband or with the principal accused. Detention of an individual based on such disclosure statement cannot be permitted for an indefinite period.

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 co-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 sepa