The admissibility of evidence, particularly disclosure statements, under the NDPS Act and the requirement for corroborative evidence to establish guilt.

JUDGMENT

Jasgurpreet Singh Puri, J. - Both these two petitions are taken up together since the same are arising out of the same FIR, filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C for grant of regular bail to the petitioners in case bearing FIR No.143 dated 23.10.2020, under Sections 21 (c) and 29 of the NDPS, Act, registered at Police Station Chabbewal, District Hoshiarpur.

All the learned counsel for the parties have stated that both petitions can be taken up together for final disposal.

The facts in the present case are taken up from CRM-M-18799- 2021. As per the FIR when the police party was patrolling and checking for suspicious persons, an unnumbered white colored Activa which was being driven by a lady came from the side of Mahilpur seeing which the police signalled her to stop but she, instead of stopping the Activa, tried to drive away but with the help of other police officials she was stopped and was asked her name and address upon which she told her name to be Jasvir Kaur alias Faujan wife of late Kishan Singh, resident of Mahilpur and was confronted bya police officialwho told his name and identity and gave her an option for being searched through any Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer of the Punjab Government and, therefore, the provisions of Section 50 NDPS Act were complied with. A recovery of 400 grams of heroin was effected from the aforesaid Jasvir Kaur and the Indian currency worth Rs.11,40,000/- was also recovered.

Mr. Vinod Ghai, learned Senior Advocate appearing with Ms. Kanika Ahuja, Advocate in CRM-M-18799-2021 as well as Mr. R.P. Dhir, Advocate appearing in CRM-M-18743-2021 have submitted that both the petitioners have been falsely implicated in the present case. Giving the background of the case they have submitted that the main accused in the present case is Jasvir Kaur against whom a number of cases are pending but so far as the present petitioners are concerned, both the petitioners are sons-in-law of Jasvir Kaur and they were neither present at the spot nor was anything recovered from them nor were they involved in the present case.

The FIR was lodged on 23.10.2020 and on the same day vide Annexure P-2 the said Jasvir Kaur suffered a disclosure statement and named one Gurnam Singh by stating that he used to supplydrugs to her which she further sold to the customers and collected money. In this disclosure statement the main accused Jasvir Kaur did not make any mention about the petitioners.

However, after two days i.e. on 25.10.2020 vide Annexure P-3 she made a second disclosure statement giving the names of both the petitioners, who are her sons-in-law, stating that they used to bring heroin from outside and supply it to her. The learned counsels for the petitioners have submitted that it is a case where in fact the police officers had personal grudges against the aforesaid Jasvir Kaur because earlier also the police wanted to involve the petitioners who are the sons-in-law of the Jasvir Kaur and vide Annexure P- 6 Jasvir Kaur had filed a petition before this Court highlighting the high handedness of the police and this Court had issued directions vide Annexure P-6 to the I.G. Police to look into the representation and if need be to take appropriate steps in accordance with law. This order was passed on 03.04.2018 and thereafter, now it was only because of the aforesaid reason that the police has falsely got the disclosure statement from Jasvir Kaur and that also in her second disclosure statement where the names have been taken. It was further submitted that it is a settled law that disclosure statement is a weak piece of evidence and in the absence of any corroborative evidence to link the accused with the main offence purely on the basis of disclosure statement is unsafe. Learned counsels further relied upon the latest judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu [2021 (1) RCR (Criminal) 1] to contend that disclosure statement is inadmissible in evidence especially under the NDPS Act. They