IMPORTANT POINT
Confessions require corroboration to be admissible, and the burden of proof for detention lies with the prosecution, especially under special laws like the NDPS Act.

ORDER :

1. The jurisdiction of this court has been invoked by way of filing the instant 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 26.04.2023 shri Devilal, SHO Rathanjana, Pratapnagar along with him team during patrolling upon suspicion, intercepted a Motorcycle and interrogated the driver, who disclosed his name as Om Prakash and during search, three plastic bags weighing 3kg 800 gms opium was recovered from the dickey of the vehicle. Whereafter, the accused Om Prakash was arrested and during investigation, he stated that he purchased the said contraband from one Rakesh. A case under Section 8/18 of the NDPS Act was registered against the accused Om Prakash.

3. It is contended on behalf of the accused-petitioner that the petitioner is arrested in this 08.07.2024 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.

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 08.07.2024. 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 Om Prakash. Interestingly, on 27.04.2024 when the accused Om Prakash was again interrogated by the Police Inspector Deepak Kumar wherein he made a disclosure statement that he may confirm the place wherefrom he procure the opium and to whom he obtained, however in the said disclosure he did not disclose the name of the petitioner. The site verification memo dated 30.04.2023 has a significant development by stating that the accused Om Prakash told the police officials regarding procurement of the opium to him by the petitioner Rakesh. In view of the significant improvement as well as in view of the disclosure statement dated 27.04.2023 in which the petitioner’s name does not find place, is a serious defect of investigation which can easily be traced out. 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 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 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 Evidence Act which distinctly relates to the commission of the crime. It is the admitted case of prosecuti