ORDER :

FARJAND ALI, J.

1. The jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked by way of filing an application under Section 483 of the BNS at the instance of accused-petitioner. The requisite details of the matter aretabulated herein below:

2. It is contended on behalf of the accused-petitioner that no case for the alleged offences is made out against the petitioner and he has been made an accused based on conjectures and surmises and on the basis of the statement made by the co-(accused in custody) There are no factors at play in the case at hand that may work against grant of bail to him and his further incarceration is not warranted. On these grounds, prays that the petitioner may be granted indulgence of bail.

3. 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.

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. At the outset, it is noticed that the petitioner has been implicated solely on the basis of the statement of the co-accused and no recovery of any contraband has been effected from his possession. Prima facie, there is no material on record to establish any nexus of the petitioner either with the ownership of the alleged contraband or with the persons who are stated to be connected therewith. The investigation has already culminated into filing of the charge-sheet and, therefore, the possibility of the petitioner influencing the investigation stands substantially ruled out. It is also an admitted position that the co- accused, namely Gajraj Singh @ Gajendra Singh, has been enlarged on bail and the case of the present petitioner does not stand on a footing worse than that of the said co-accused. The trial is proceeding at a snail’s pace and there is nothing on record to suggest that the petitioner has any criminal antecedents. In these circumstances, the continued incarceration of the petitioner, who is sought to be linked with the alleged offence only on the basis of the disclosure statement of the co-accused, prima facie appears to be unwarranted, which necessitates an examination of the evidentiary worth of such disclosure in the light of the settled principles governing Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act.

5. It is a well-settled proposition that a confessional or disclosure statement made in police custody has limited evidentiary value under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, and only that portion of the statement which leads to the discovery of a fact can be admissible. In the instant case, there is no material to suggest that any incriminating recovery or discovery was effected pursuant to the second disclosure allegedly implicating the petitioner. The prosecution has also failed to establish any independent corroborative evidence linking the petitioner to the alleged transaction or recovery.

6. In this backdrop, the subsequent disclosure, being inconsistent and uncorroborated, appears highly doubtful and cannot, by itself, constitute a sufficient legal foundation for continued detention or prosecution of the petitioner. The variance between the two disclosures, particularly when recorded in quick succession, prima facie reflects an attempt at embellishment or afterthought, thereby eroding the evidentiary sanctity of the second statement to the extent it seeks to involve the petitioner.

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 i