ORDER :

Farjand Ali, J.

The instant bail application has been filed by the petitioner Budhram S/o Sadram under Section 439 Cr.P.C against the order impugned dated passed by learned court below in connection with FIR No.318/2021 registered at Police Station Dhorimanna, District Barmer for the offences under Sections 8 /21, 25, 29 and 30 of NDPS Act. The first bail application came to be dismissed by this Court vide order dated 21.12.2022 as not pressed.

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the instant case are that a jeep bearing registration No. RJ 19 UA 3009 was intercepted by the police at the time of 'nakabandi' on MRT road on 27.09.2021 at about 02:45 P.M. Upon suspicion, the police officers searched the vehicle and during search, total 100 grams each of MDMA was found from both the persons which was seized by the police. It is stated in the FIR that one of the persons who was sitting on the back seat of the jeep and he ran towards the nearby bushes and could not be grabbed.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a false case has been foisted against the petitioner. He has nothing to do with the alleged offences and no useful purpose would be served by keeping him behind the bars. It is the admitted case of the prosecution that neither the petitioner was found present at the crime scene nor any incriminating material or contraband was recovered from his possession. He has been made accused on the strength of confessional statement allegedly made by principal-accused Gogaram which is not admissible in evidence by virtue of sections 25 and 26 of Indian EVIDENCE ACT . He submits that for booking an accused for the accusation of the offence committed under Section 29 of the NDPS Act, there must be some corroborative evidence. Similarly situated co-accused Ramgopal has been granted bail by a coordinate bench of this court, thus, on the ground of parity the present petitioner also deserves to be englared on bail. Since nothing is there on record from which involvement of the accused can be presumed, therefore, the embargo under Section 37 of NDPS Act do not come in way of releasing the petitioner on bail.

4. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application on the ground that contraband MDMA weighing 100 grams was recovered. The recovered contraband MDMA is way above the demarcated commercial quantity and therefore, in view of the bar contained under Section 37 of NDPS Act, no case of bail is made out.

5. Heard. Perused the material available on record.

6. It is an admitted fact of the case that when the search and seizure, it was alleged that one of the persons had fled from the scene and that person has been stated to be the present petitioner on the basis of statement of principal-accused. There is no evidence whatsoever to connect the present petitioner with the alleged recovery of contraband except the confessional statement of Ramgopal. This court is of the view that at least there must be some corroborations or support to verify the confession made by the principal accused to the Police Office. 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.

7. The Privy Council in the case of Pulukuri Kotayya v. Emperor reported in AIR 1947 PC 67 discussed the provision stipulated under s