The court ruled that a lack of corroborative evidence linking the accused to the crime necessitates bail, emphasizing the importance of personal liberty and the need for material evidence in criminal proceedings.

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. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on 14.10.2023 Shri Jagdish Singh, SHO Pindwara District Sirohi along with him team during patrolling intercepted a Car bearing registration No.RJ20-CG-1646 and interrogated the driver, who disclosed his name as Rajendra Singh and the person who fled away was Harish @ Heera Lal. During search, eight plastic bags weighing 152 Kg poppy husk was recovered. Whereafter, the accused Rajendra Singh was arrested and during investigation he stated that out of the recovered contraband 20 Kg poppy husk belonged to Harish and rest of the contraband was to be delivered to one Mangla Ram. A case under Section 8/15 of the NDPS Act was registered against the accused Rajendra Singh.

3. It is contended on behalf of the accused-petitioner that the petitioner is arrested in this 22.10.2023 on the basis of statement of principal accused Harish, 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 22.10.2023. The Investigating Officer further admits that the tower location petitioner’s mobile phone was not traced out at the relevant place. 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 Rajendra Singh. It is pertinent to note here that besides the above 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 disclosure statement cannot be made for an indefinite period the alleged transportation or recovery of the 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, nothing new was disclosed, recovered or discovered. This court is of the view that at least there must be some corroborations or support to verify the confession made by the accused to the Police Officer while in lockup.

8. It has been held by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of Mohd. Inayatullah Vs. State of Maharastra, reported in AIR 1976 SC 483 that in order to apply Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, only the components which are essential or were the cause of the discovery would be considered to be legal evidence.The relevant paragraph of the judgment reads as under:-

“For the application of Section 27 the s