IMPORTANT POINT
The court emphasized that mere confessions without corroborative evidence cannot justify detention, highlighting the importance of personal liberty.

ORDER :

1. The jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked by way of filing application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. at the instance of accused-petitioners. The requisite details of the matter are tabulated herein below:

2. It is contended on behalf of the accused-petitioner that 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 accused based on conjectures and surmises. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the co-accused Shobharam (S.B. Criminal Misc. 2nd Bail Application No. 12653 /2024) has already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 08.10.2024. He further submits that case of the petitioner is not distinguishable with that of the case of the aforesaid co-accused who has already been enlarged on bail.

3. 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.

4. I have considered the submissions made by both the parties and have perused the material available on record. Co-accused Shobharam has already been enlarged on bail vide order dated 08.10.2024 passed in S.B. Criminal Misc. 2nd Bail Application No. 12653/2024. The relevant part of the aforesaid order is being reproduced hereinbelow:-

“6. Perusal of the record revealing that the petitioner is behind the bars in this case since 18.10.2023. 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 statements made by the co-accused Bhanwar Lal and Sita Ram. 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 the Evidence Act regarding the culpability of the petitioner, nothing new was disclosed, recovered or discovered. This court is of the view that at least there must be some corroborations or support to verify the confession made by the co-accused to the Police Officer while in lockup.

8. It has been held by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of Mohd. Inayatullah Vs. State of Maharastra, reported in AIR 1976 SC 483 that in order to apply Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, only the components which are essential or were the cause of the discovery would be considered to be legal evidence. The relevant paragraph of the judgment reads as under:-

“For the application of Section 27 the statement must be split into its components and to separate the admission portion. Only those components or portions which were the immediate cause of the discovery would be legal evidence and not the rest which must be excised and rejected.”

9. It can be manifested from a simple reading of Section 27 of the Evidence Act and the judgments referred above that only information in the form of co