Indefinite detention based on uncorroborated confessions is unjustifiable; the prosecution must provide additional evidence to warrant continued incarceration.

Order :

FARJAND ALI, J.

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

2. In nutshell the facts of the case are that on 05.01.2023, ASI, Police Station Rashmi and his team alongwith another team when reached near the Banas river at that time a Scorpio came in a high speed and collided with their private vehicle i.e. Swift Car bearing registration No.RJ09 CC 41110 resulting which members of the police team received injuries and after firing, the driver alongwith another person left the Scorpio there and fled away from the spot. The Circle Officer made a search over the said Scorpio bearing registration No. RJ46 UA 0575 and recovered 24 bags weighing 4 Quintals & 56 Kg poppy husk from it. Whereafter a case under Section 8 , 15 &29 Of the NDPS Act got registered against the petitioner. The first bail application of the petitioner, being SBCRLMB No.15880/2023 was dismissed as not pressed by this Court vide order dated 17.05.2024 and a liberty was afforded to him to renew the prayer for bail after the statement of Investigating Officer is recorded. Now the statement of Investigating Officer has been recorded in the trial. Hence, the instant bail application.

3. It is contended on behalf of the accused-petitioner that the petitioner is arrested in this case on the basis of statement of principal 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.

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

6. It is the case of the prosecution that on 05.11.2023, the police team of Rashmi noticed a Scorpio vehicle came in a high speed and then hit their private vehicle Swift Car bearing registration No.RJ09 CC 4110. when the said Scorpio vehicle was intercepted, the accused had made their escape good before coming into clutches of the police team. Based on the investigation conducted so far, one accused Ram Niwas was apprehended after ten months of the incident. He made a confession before the police officer while in custody to the effect that when he was carrying the vehicle Scorpio from which the contraband came to be recovered, the petitioner Dinesh also provided assistance to him and he (Dinesh) was having a White I- 20 car bearing registration No.RJ 09 CC 4014 in which he was escorting the Scorpio. Based on the confession so made by the co- accused Ram Niwas, the petitioner was taken into custody in this matter. Frankly speaking, there is no material on record to corroborate the confession made by accused Ram Niwas to a police officer, while in custody. Interestingly, in the FIR or in any other paper, there is no mentioning regarding presence of I-20 car with the Scorpio Vehicle from which the contraband was recovered. In view of the above, the confession made by the co- accused Ram Niwas that the petitioner was escorting him through another vehicle I-20 seems to be seriously contested. Whether, the petitioner should be detained for more longer period on this count alone that the co-accused Ram Niwas made a confession to Sub Inspe