Bail is the rule at the pre-conviction stage, and denial should be exceptional, especially when evidence is insufficient and the accused's rights are at stake.

Order :

(FARJAND ALI, J.)

1. The jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked by way of filing an application(s) under Section 439 CrPC at the instance of accused-petitioners. The requisite details of the matter are tabulated herein below:

2. The concise facts of the case as alleged in the FIR are that on 09.09.2023 Sub Inspector Devendra Kumar along with his team intercepted a XUV-500 Car bearing registration No.HR26BP7804, upon suspicion interrogated the persons sitting therein whereupon they disclosed their names as Babu Khan and Vinod Guwaria and during search seven bags of poppy husk (total 131 Kg in weight) got recovered. After search and seizure they were arrested; a case as stated above under the NDPS Act has been registered against them. During their custody, on the basis of confessional statement, the petitioner Shamboo Lal has been booked as an accused and arrested on 28.07.2024 in this case. The first bail application being SBCRLMB Nos.13738/2024 (Shamboolal) & 6934/2024 (Babu Khan) came to be dismissed by this Court vide orders dated 20.11.2024 & 08.08.2024.

3. It is contended on behalf of the accused-petitioners that no case for the alleged offences is made out against them and their 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-petitioners and they have been made an accused based on conjectures and surmises.

4. Contrary to the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Public Prosecutor opposes the bail application and submits that the present case is not fit for enlargement of accused on bail.

5. I have heard and considered the submissions made by both the parties and perused the material available on record.

(SBCRLMB No.4076/2025)

6. A perusal of the record revealing that the petitioner Shamboolal was not present at the spot and he has booked as an accused on the basis of confessional statement given by the co- accused during their custody and besides that nothing is on record to connect to him with alleged offence.

7. It is an admitted case of the prosecution that when the search and seizure was conducted, the petitioner was not present on the spot from which the recovery has been affected. It is alleged that the present petitioner has been made accused on the basis of the statements of co-accused. In the case at hand, no other legally admissible evidence that could connect the petitioner to the crime or to the other co-accused persons for that matter has come to the fore, thus, the disclosure statement of the co- accused on the basis of which the present petitioner has been made an accused in this case remains just illusory knowledge and does not become a fact proved as no fact has been discovered in consequence of the information disclosed by the co-accused and, therefore, it cannot be said with certainty that the accused can be roped in for commission of offence under Section 29 of the NDPS Act.

8. The legal position in this regard is well settled that 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 the prosecution that in pursuance of the information furnished under Section 27 of the Evidence Act regarding the culpability of the petitioners, nothing new was disclosed, recovered or discovered. This court is of the view that at least there must be some corroboration or support to verify the confession made by the accused to the Police Officer while i