IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that for bail under the NDPS Act, there must be corroborative evidence beyond confessions to justify detention.

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 13.09.2021, during patrolling, the SHO P.S. Chunwardh, District Sri Ganganagar along with him team reached near the three way. On seeing them, a man and woman sitting on the Activa bearing registration No.RJ13 SQ8208 and a person sitting on Motorcycle bearing registration No.RJ13 SD1748 tried to fled away from the spot but were apprehended, the persons sitting on Activa disclosed their names as Sumit & Simran and the rider of the Motorcycle disclosed his name as Karam Singh. Upon suspicion, a search was made wherein 18 boxes carrying 360 strips (in all 3600 Tablets) of Tramadol Prolonged release Tablets IP Tramwedi SR 100 (1440 grams in weight) were recovered from a bag carried on Activa whereas upon being search of Motorcycle, a black ploythene bag was containing seven boxes of 140 strips containing 1400 Tramadol prolonged release Tablets IP Tramwel SR 100 (560 grams in weight) was recovered from the handle of the vehicle. Upon interrogation, it was disclosed that the recovered contraband was purchased by them from Lakhvindra Singh @ Lakha, R/o Setiya Farm. Whereafter the co-accused persons were arrested and a case under Sections 8/22 and 29 were registered against them. On the basis of the above statement the petitioner was booked as an accused in this case. His first bail application being SBCRLMB No.4014/2023 dismissed by this Court vide order dated 27.02.2024

3. It is contended on behalf of the accused-petitioner that the petitioner is arrested in this 01.01.2022 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 01.01.2022. 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 Sumit, Simran and Karam Singh. It is pertinent to note here that besides the above tainted evidence, there is no other material to show or suggest the connectivity of the petitioner either with the contraband or with the principal accused. It is a bizarre situation. The manipulation at the hands of investigating agency cannot be ruled out. Detention of an individual based on such tainted disclosure statement cannot be made for an indefinite period. Interestingly, except the above disclosure statement there is nothing on record to either corroborate or connect the petitioner with the alleged transportation or recovery of the 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