Back
2025 Supreme(Raj) 1959
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
FARJAND ALI, J.
Prashant Singh Urf Pappsa Urf Pappu Singh S/o Sumer Singh – Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan - Respondent
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 4th Bail Application No. 8214 of 2025
Decided on : 10-07-2025
Important Points
Subject
Criminal Law - Bail Proceedings
Act Referred
Headnote
(B) Evidence Act - Section 27 - Admissibility of confession - A confession must result in a discovery of material related to the crime to be admissible as evidence; isolated confessions without corroboration are not enough to establish guilt. (Paras 6, 7)
Facts of the case:
The accused was implicated in a drug-related offense based on the statement of a principal accused, who claimed the accused assisted in concealing illegal substances, despite no direct evidence substantiating this involvement.
Findings of Court:
The court found insufficient corroboration for the accused's complicity in the offense, citing the need for a prima facie basis for the charges.
Issues: The court addressed whether the arrest and charges against the accused were justified based on the co-accused's statement and whether substantive evidence was necessary for detention.
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that without corroborative evidence linking the accused to the criminal activity, the continuation of custody was unjustified, reinforcing the principle that mere allegations without evidence do not warrant bail denial.
Result: Bail application allowed.
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Dungar Dan Charan
For the Respondent: Mr. Vikram Rajpuorhit, Dy.G.A.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. details of the case facts and charges. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. arguments concerning the petitioner's innocence. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. court's consideration of evidence and relationships. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 4. principles of admissibility of confessional statements. (Para 7 , 9 , 10) |
| 5. conditions under section 37 of the ndps act. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 6. granting of bail under section 439 crpc. (Para 15) |
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:
| S.No. | Particulars of the Case | |
| 1. | FIR Number | 36/2024 |
| 2. | Concerned Police Station | Sangad |
| 3. | District | Jaisalmer |
| 4. | Offences alleged in the FIR | Section 8/15 of the NDPS Act |
| 5. | Offences added, if any | Section 8/29 of the NDPS Act |
| 6. | Date of passing of impugned order | 18.02.2025 |
2. The concise fact of the case are that on 24.03.2024, during blockade duty on NH-68, SHO Rajesh Kumar received information that Bhom Singh S/o Deep Singh was concealing illegal poppy straw in his castor crop and house at his tubewell field in Sarhad Chhodia. Acting on the tip-off, police apprehended Bhom Singh while he was hiding a black plastic bag in the crop. Upon search, six plastic sacks containing poppy husk weighing a total of 153.700 kg (including sack weight) were recovered from the field. As no civilian witness was available, Constables Shri Krishna and Babu Singh acted as motbirs. After issuing a notice under Section 50 NDPS Act, the accused consented to the search. Bhom Singh admitted he had no licence for possession and disclosed that the contraband was brought to his field by Pappasa @ Prashant Singh Khichi at the behest of his brother Tejmal Singh. During his custody he disclosed the name of present petitioner and on the basis of confessional statement, he has been arraigned as an accused in this matter and a case under Section 8 /15 & 8/29 of the NDPS Act has been registered against him. His earlier bail application being SBCRLMB No.2967/2025 was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 30.05.2025. Hence, the instant application for bail.
3. It is contended on behalf of the accused-petitioner that the petitioner is arrested in this 19.07.2024 on the basis of statement of principal accused Bhoom Singh, 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 19.07.2024. The SHO, PS Bhopalgarh along with his team effected search and six plastic sacks containing poppy husk weighing a total of 153.700 kg (including sack weight) were recovered from the field. Based on confessional statement made by the aforementioned accused, the petitioner has been booked and arrested in this matter.
6.1. The record reveals that the Petitioner and the co-accused not only reside in the same village but are also relatives, indicating a natural and ongoing relationship between them. In view of this proximity—both familial and geographical—the occurrence of telephonic communication between them, in the ordinary course of social interaction, appears to be neither unusual nor incriminating on its own. However, it is of particular significance that there is no record of any telephonic exchange on the specific date relevant to the alleged incident in question. While it is true that certain calls w
