IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that confessions of co-accused require corroboration to justify detention, emphasizing the need for 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 21.04.2021 during patrolling Maan Singh, SHO, PS Sadar Hanumangarh along with his team tried to stop a Car bearing registration No.PB60 C2427 but Sandeep @ Sukhdeep, the driver of the said vehicle tried to fled away from the spot then the Constable Harish tried to stop the said vehicle by his Govt. Motorcycle and in scuffle Harish fell down and receive an injury on his knee but when Sandeep @ Sukhdeep along with his companion left the vehicle made escape their good and fled away. During search, 600 strips containing 6000 Tablets of Tramadol Hydrochloride 100 mg Clovedol-100 SR were recovered. The weight of the medicinal drug was 1 Kg782 grams. After search and seizure, samples were taken and sent for its chemical examination. A case under Section 8/22 of the NDPS Act and Sections 307, 332 & 353 of the IPC got registered. During investigation Sandeep @ Sukhdeep and Parvindra Singh were arrested on 27.06.2022 & 30.06.2022, who stated that present petitioner has delivered them a bag containing medicinal drugs. On the basis of the statement of Sandeep, present petitioner has been arraigned as an accused in this matter.

3. It is contended on behalf of the accused-petitioner that the petitioner is arrested in this 02.07.2022 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 02.07.2022. During investigation when the co-accused were interrogated initially they disclosed that the said contraband was purchased by them from Pala Ram but later in the charge sheet it has been mentioned that they have purchased the said contraband from one Vinod, R/o Suratgarh but due to non-availability of the address and contract details he has not been examined in trial. 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 statement made by the co-accused Sandeep @ Sukhdeep and Parvindra Singh owing to some personal grudges. 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