Bail cannot be denied based solely on confessions without corroborative evidence; the accused's detention must be justified by reliable evidence.

ORDER :

FARJAND ALI, J.

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. In nutshell the facts of the case are that on 07.11.2023 SHO Devnagar, Jodhpur along with him team made search at the residential house of Sandeep @ Sandy and wherefrom 75.65 grams MD (Mephadrone) and cash of Rs.1,10,000/- got recovered from a Wooden Wardrobe upon which he was arrested and taken into custody. During investigation he disclosed that he purchased the said contraband from one Bhajan Lal. A case under Section 8/18 of the NDPS Act was registered against the accused Sandeep.

3. It is contended on behalf of the accused-petitioner that the petitioner is arrested in this 07.04.2024 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 07.04.2024. 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 statement made by the co-accused Sandeep @ Sandy. Interestingly, on 08.11.2023 when the accused Sandeep was interrogated by the SHO, Police Station Soorsagar wherein he made a disclosure statement that he and Bhajan Lal purchased the alleged contraband from a Hotel which is situated nearby Pratapgarh Highway from a person, he may confirm the said place. Whereas, in his second statement recorded on 10.11.2023 when the accused Sandeep was again interrogated by the SHO, Police Station Soorsagar wherein he made a disclosure statement that he purchased the alleged contraband from Bhajan Lal S/o Bhanwar Lal which was handed over to him in the land of Mahalaxmi Sweets, he may confirm the said place.

7. It is pertinent to note here that besides the above tainted evidence, there is no other material to show or suggest the connectivity of the petitioner either with the contraband or with the principal accused. It is a bizarre situation. The manipulation at the hands of investigating agency cannot be ruled out. Detention of an individual based on such tainted disclosure statement particularly when there are two conflicting disclosures; cannot be made for an indefinite period. Interestingly, except the above two contrast disclosure statement there is nothing on record to either corroborate or connect the petitioner with the alleged transportation or recovery of the contraband.

8. 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