Bail was granted due to lack of substantive evidence against the accused-petitioner, emphasizing that disclosure statements from co-accused are inadmissible.

ORDER :

(PRAVEER BHATNAGAR, J. )

1. The instant bail application has been filed under Section 483 of B.N.S.S. on behalf of accused-petitioner. The accused-petitioner has been arrested in connection with FIR No.75/2024, registered at Police Station Ayana, District Kota Rural, for the offence(s) under Sections 8/20 of the N.D.P.S. Act.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the accused- petitioner has falsely been implicated for the offence under Section 8/29 of the N.D.P.S. Act. It is contended that the recovery of the contraband article containing 2 kg 865 grams was effected from the other co-accused Bhuvnesh @ Bhunesh Mali. The co- accused Bhuvnesh @ Bhunesh Mali has named the accused- petitioner in the disclosure statement that the said ganja was supplied to him by the accused-petitioner and he paid Rs.30,000/-. To substantiate the disclosure statements of the co- accused, there is no substantive evidence available on the record indicating that the accused-petitioner has supplied the said contraband article to the main accused. The disclosure statements are information recorded under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act by the co-accused and the same is not admissible against the accused-petitioner. The previous bail application of the petitioner's was dismissed, solely on the ground that the petitioner was found to be involved in 50 cases. In the present case, no cases is made out against the accused-petitioner under Section 8/29 of the N.D.P.S. Act, therefore, the bail application of the accused- petitioner may be allowed.

3. Learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the grant of bail application.

4. Heard and perused the material available on the record.

5. It is not desirable to express anything on the merits of the case, suffice to say that apart from the disclosure statement of the other co-accused, there is not other material available on the record indicating the involvement of the accused-petitioner and the trial of the case may take considerable time, therefore, considering the above facts, I deem it just and proper to enlarge the accused-petitioner on bail.

6. Accordingly, the bail application under Section 483 of B.N.S.S. is allowed and it is ordered that the accused-petitioner- Bhanwar Singh @ Langda S/o Prabhu Singh, in connection with FIR No.75/2024, registered at Police Station Ayana, District Kota Rural, shall be enlarged on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Judge for his appearance before the Court concerned on all the dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so.

7. The accused-petitioner is also directed to mark his presence on 25^th of every month till conclusion of trial before the concerned Police Station. The SHO of the concerned Police Station shall send the presence report of the accused-petitioner to the trial Court, every month. In case of any breach to the above condition, the learned Public Prosecutor shall be free to move the application against the petitioner for cancellation of the bail before the concerned Court.