IMPORTANT POINT
Confessions of co-accused require corroboration to be admissible; mere allegations without evidence do not justify denial of bail.

ORDER :

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.4984/2024 were dismissed as not pressed by this Court vide order dated 10.05.2024 but a liberty was granted to the petitioner to approach this Court again filing the challan papers. Now, the Investigating Officer has submitted filed final report. Hence, the instant application for bail.

3. In nutshell the facts of the case are that on 09.04.2024 during patrolling, when Rajeev Royal, SHO, Police Station along with his police team reached near the Circle 19 GG, 20 GG 2 LL then they saw a person having a brown bag in his hand was coming from 2 LL, on seeing the police party, he tried to escape but upon suspicion the police party stopped him and asked his name. He disclosed his name as Darshan Singh R/o Khatalbana, PS, Hidumalkot, District Sri Ganganagar. On being search, 5450 tablets of NRX Tramadol Hydrochloride Tablets IP 100 mg Coidol 100 SR Tablet were recovered in 11 boxes; the weight of these tablets was 2 kg 289 gms. Whereafter, the recovered contraband was marked and seized, the same was sent to the FSL for its chemical examination. The accused Darshan Singh was arrested and a case under Section 8/22 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 13.04.2024 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 13.04.2024. 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 Darshan Singh, on 09.04.2024, when he was subjected to interrogation, he made a disclosure statement to a Sub-Inspector Rajiv Royal of Police Station Chunawad that he purchased the medicines from a Medical Store at Village Borunda but he neither knew the name of the medical store nor the name of its owner. In specific terms, he had stated to the police that even he was not able to either identify the shop or mention the name of the person, to whom he brought the medicine. Interestingly, on another date i.e. 11.04.2024, a disclosure statement under Section 27 of the Evidence Act is recorded wherein he stated that he bought the medicines from Swaroop Chand, who is the owner of Ganga Medical Store, Borunda. It is a bizarre situation. The manipulation at the hands of investigating agency cannot be ruled out. Detention of an individual based on such tented disclosure statement particularly when there are two conflicting disclosures; cannot be made for an indefinite period. Interestingly, except the above two contrast disclosure statement there is nothing on record to either corroborate or connect the petitioner with the alleged tran