Confessional statements under Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act are inadmissible, and lack of evidence warrants bail under NDPS Act.

Order :

1. This application for bail under Section 483 of BNSS has been filed by the petitioner who has been arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.91/2023 registered at Police Station Chouhtan, District Barmer, for the offences under Sections 8/15 and 25 of the NDPS Act .

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the co- accused B abu Lal (S. B . Criminal Miscellaneous B ail Application No.12284/2024) has already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 27.11.2024. Learned counsel further submitted that case of the present petitioner is not distinguishable from that of the above named co-accused B abu Lal who has already been enlarged on bail by this Court.

4. Lastly, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is in judicial custody; the petitioner does not have any criminal antecedents; the challan has already been filed and the trial of the case will take sufficiently long time, therefore, the benefit of bail may be granted to the accused-petitioner.

5. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the bail application. However, he was not in a position to refute the fact that the above name co-accused Babu Lal has already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 27.11.2024.

6. The order dated 27.11.2024 passed by this Court is reproduced hereinbelow:-

“1. This application for bail under Section 483 BNSS (Section 439 Cr.P.C.) has been filed by the petitioner who has been arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.91/2023 registered at Police Station Chouhtan, District Barmer, for offences under Sections 8/15, 25 of NDPS Act.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as per the prosecution, contraband (poppy husk/straw) weighing 156.100 Kgs. was recovered from an abandoned pick up vehicle by the Circle Officer, Police Station Chouhtan, District Barmer. Learned counsel submitted that the co-accused Ramesh Kumar (Bail Application No.7841/2023), who was already in custody in connection with FIR No.163/2022 lodged at PS Sedwa at the time of recovery was allegedly found to be the registered owner of the offending vehicle. Co-accused Ramesh Kumar, in response to the notice given to him under Section 133 of MV Act, had informed the investigating agency that he had handed over the offending vehicle to co-accused Khema Ram who was using the same.

4. Drawing attention of the Court towards the chargesheet, learned counsel submitted that merely on the basis of an aspersion cast by the co-accused Ramesh Kumar, the petitioner was arrested and falsely roped in the present case and no official memo of the aforesaid information was ever prepared by the investigating agency. Learned counsel submitted that surprisingly the petitioner thus came to be arrested by the investigating agency on 30.11.2023, without their being any direct or circumstantial evidence against him. The petitioner while in police custody divulged an information under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act that he was transporting the recovered contraband in the offending vehicle with co-accused Khema Ram. Learned counsel submitted that apparently the confessional statement of the petitioner recorded by the police has no evidentiary value whatsoever as the same would be hit by Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act . Learned counsel submitted that after arresting the petitioner, the co-accused Khema Ram, whose name was disclosed by the co-accused Ramesh Kumar as the person in whose custody he had entrusted the offending vehicle while he was lodge at Barmer Jail, also came to be arrested by the investigating agency on 06.02.2024. The co- accused Khema Ram while in police custody in h