Bail under Section 439 CrPC requires corroborative evidence for abetment or conspiracy; mere statements from co-accused are insufficient for detention.

ORDER :

Farjand Ali, J.

1. The jurisdiction of this court has been invoked by way of filing the instant bail applications under Section 439 CrPC at the instance of accused-petitioners. The requisite details of the matter are tabulated herein below:

2. The concise fact of the case are that on 02.05.2023, during patrolling near the National Highway No.62 a motorcycle No.RJ07 SJ1165 was intercepted and its rider and pillion rider Bhutta Singh, Khet Singh and Sunil Kumar were interrogated. Upon search eight plastic bags weighing 470 grams heroine was recovered from the utility box of the said vehicle. After searcha and seizure, an FIR aforesaid came to be registered. On the basis of confessional statement, the present petitioners have been arraigned as an accused in this matter and a case under the NDPS Act has been registered against him. The first bail application of Bhagwan Singh being SBCRLMB No.13737/2023 was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 10.05.2024 but a liberty was granted to the petitioner to renew the prayer for bail after recording of the statement of Seizing Officer, he has yet not been examined. Hence, the instant application for bail.

3. It is contended on behalf of the accused-petitioners that the petitioners are arrested in this 21.07.2023 on the basis of statement of co-accused, however they were not present at the spot thus, no case for the alleged offences is made out against them and their incarceration is not warranted. They have been booked as accused on the basis of statement of co-accused. No recovery has been affected at their instance. 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 considered the submissions made by the parties and have perused the material available on record.

6. Perusal of the record revealing that the petitioners are behind the bars in this case since 21.07.2023. The team of agency effected search and recovered 470 grams heroine from the utility box of Motorcycle bearing registration No.RJ07 SJ1165 and its rider and pillion riders Bhutta Singh, Khet Singh and Sunil Kumar were arrested. Based on confessional statement made by the co- accused, the petitioners have been booked and arrested in this matter. Co-accused Sumer Singh and Madhu Singh have already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 11.12.2024 passed in SBCRLMB No.15051/2024 & 15052/2024. The charge- sheet has been filed way back and the trial has also been commenced long ago but no endeavours have been made to conclude it. It is further revealed that out of total 25 witnesses, only few witnesses have been examined in the trial till date, thus, looking to the snail pace progress of the trial, they have again approach this Court for protecting their liberty.

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 petitioners, 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 bee