The court emphasized that mere confessions without corroborative evidence are insufficient for conviction, allowing bail due to lack of evidence linking the accused to the crime.

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. The concise fact of the case are that on 26.09.2023, team of CBN, Chittorgarh and his upon receiving an information stopped a person near Chittorgarh-Bhilwara Road, Opp. BSL factory, Hamirgarh in a suspicious condition. Upon interrogation he disclosed his name Rahul and during search 3.650 Kg opium was recovered from a cloth bag. He stated that the said contraband was purchased by him from Riyaz Moihd. On the basis of confessional statement, the present petitioner has been arraigned as an accused in this matter and a case under Section 8/18 & 8/29 of the NDPS Act has been registered against him. His first & second bail application being SBCRLMB Nos.4538/2024 & 13454/2024 were dismissed as not pressed by this Court vide order dated 06.05.2024 & 26.11.2024. While rejecting the earlier bail application, a liberty was granted to the petitioner to renew the prayer for bail after recording of the statement of Investigating Officer. Now he has been examined in the trial. Hence, the instant application for bail.

3. It is contended on behalf of the accused-petitioner that the petitioner is arrested in this 26.09.2023 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 26.09.2023. The team of respondent agency effected search and recovered 3.650 Kg opium from the possession of principal accused Rahul. Based on confessional statement made by the aforementioned accused, the petitioner has been booked and arrested in this matter. On two earlier occasions, his bail applications were dismissed while giving a liberty to approach this Court again after recording the statement of the Investigating Officer. Now, the Investigating Officer has been examined in the trial as PW2 Paramveer Singh who, in an unambiguous term, stated that no efforts were made to take on record any factual material to show connectivity between the petitioner and the principal accused Rahul, so also that whether they knew each other. The fact of communication in between the duo has been negated. Neither any document is available on record to show exchange of calls in between them, nor any call recording is available. He categorically admitted that the call data analysis or the transcript or the recording is not available on record of the case. The petitioner is lying behind the bars on the baseless allegations of his indulging in transportation of illegal 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 prosecution that in pursuance of the information furnished under Section 27 of the Evidence Act regarding the culpability of the petitioner,