Bail should be granted when there is no direct or circumstantial evidence against the accused, despite initial implicating statements that have been retracted.

Order :

1. This application for bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. (483 BNSS) has been filed by the petitioner who has been arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.151/2022 registered at Police Station Rajiv Gandhi Nagar, Jodhpur City West for the offences under Sections 8/15 and 29 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 in the present case, on 18.07.2022, contraband (poppy husk/straw) weighing 33 Quintal 733 Kgs. was recovered from an abandoned and turned truck having registration No.RJ-27-GA-8010. During the course of the investigation, it revealed that co-accused Rajmal Lodha is registered owner of the offending vehicle. Co-accused Rajmal Lodha in the information given by him under Section 27 of Indian Evidence Act on 24.08.2023 and 25.08.2023 stated that the recovered contraband was loaded in the offending vehicle by the present petitioner.

4. Learned counsel contended that later on co-accused Rajmal Lodha retracted from the initial information supplied by him under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act and did not name the petitioner as a person who had loaded recovered contraband in the offending vehicle.

5. Learned counsel submitted that since the petitioner has been implicated solely on the basis of the initial information supplied by the co-accused Rajmal Lodha and apart from the disclosure statements of co-accused Rajmal Lodha, there is no other direct/circumstantial evidence available on record indicating involvement of the petitioner in commission of the alleged crime, the petitioner who is in judicial custody and the investigation against whom has already been completed, deserves to be enlarged on bail.

6. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the bail application. However, he was not in a position to refute the fact that the petitioner has been implicated in the present case solely on the basis of the information divulged by co- accused Rajmal Lodha dated 24.08.2023. He also did not dispute the fact that later on Rajmal Lodha retracted from his information given under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act.

7. Having considered the rival submissions, facts and circumstances of the case, this Court prima facie finds that there is no direct/circumstantial evidence available on record indicating involvement of the petitioner in commission of the alleged crime. This Court further prima facie finds that co-accused Rajmal Lodha who had named the petitioner as a person who had loaded the recovered contraband in the offending vehicle in his subsequent statements had retracted from the information supplied by him on dated 24.08.2023. Thus, without expressing any opinion on merits/demerits of the case, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

8. In the prima facie opinion of this Court, the twin conditions enumerated under Section 37 of the NDPS Act are duly satisfied in the present case.

9. Consequently, the bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C.(483 BNSS) is allowed. It is ordered that the accused-petitioner Manoj Kumar S/o Shri Gehari Lal arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.151/2022 registered at Police Station Rajiv Gandhi Nagar, Jodhpur City West shall be released on bail, if not wanted in any other case, provided he furnishes a personal bond of Rs.1,00,000/- and two sureties of Rs.50,000/- each, to the satisfaction of learned trial court, for his appearance before that court on each & every date of hearing and whenever called upon to do so till completion of the trial.

10. It is however, made clear that findings recorded/observations made above are for limited purposes of adjudication of bail application. The trial court shall not get prejudiced by the same.