The court emphasized that mere allegations without corroborative evidence do not justify detention under the NDPS Act, leading to the granting of bail.

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. His first & second bail applications being SBCRLMB Nos.6408/2023 & 11466/2023 were dismissed as not pressed by this Court vide orders dated 23.08.2023 & 05.04.2024. Hence, the instant application for bail.

3. In nutshell the facts of the case are that 31.01.2023, at around 10:30 PM, during nakabandi on the public road near Nathwana VS Villa Marriage Palace, Sangaria, Subhash Chandra, Police Inspector, Police Station Sangaria had recovered 4200 Tramadol tablets (420 strips, each containing 10 tablets), weighing 1932 grams (excluding the packaging) from the conscious possession of the accused Harbhajan Singh alias Gagu and Sukhdev Singh alias Sukha. Investigation commenced and accused were arrested and a case under the NDPS Act has been registered.

4. It is contended on behalf of the accused-petitioner that the petitioner is arrested in this 04.02.2023 on the basis of statement of co-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.

5. 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.

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

7. Perusal of the record revealing that the petitioner is behind the bars in this case since 04.02.2023. He has been made accused on the basis of statement of co-accused and there is not an iota of evidence regarding exchange of calls between the petitioner and the co-accused. Neither the present petitioner was present at the spot nor any recovery has been affected from his possession. The petitioner is lying behind the bars on the baseless allegations of his indulging in transportation of illegal 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 some corroborations or support to verify the confession made by the accused to the Police Officer while in lockup.

9. 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 statement must be split into its components and to separate the admission portion. Only those components or portions which were the immediate cause of the discovery would be legal evidence and not the rest which must be excised and rejected.”

10. It can be manifested from a simple reading of Section 27 of the Evidence Act and the judgments referred above that only information in the form of confessio