The disclosure statements of the co-accused persons are not admissible as evidence without corroboration under the Supreme Court's ruling in Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu.

JUDGEMENT

1. The present bail application is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) seeking regular bail in FIR No. 225/2011 dated 31.08.2011, registered at Police Station Crime Branch, for offences under Sections 20/25 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act).

2. The facts of the present case are as under:

2.1 On 31.08.2011 at about 01:15 PM, a secret information was received with respect to a person namely, Ranjan Rai alias Kalu Rai, relative of the applicant that he would supply Ganja to a lady named Shakina near Balmiki Hospital, Pooth Khurd, in front of a petrol pump, at around 3:00pm to 3:15pm on the same day.

2.2 Acting on the said information, a raiding team was prepared and at about 3:05pm, a Vikram Tempo was seen coming from Pooth Khurd towards Bawana Road, which was identified by the informer as the vehicle carrying ganja. It is alleged that the informer identified the person sitting next to the driver as Rajan Rai alias Kalu Rai.

2.3 It is alleged that the tempo stopped in front of a lady, and Rajan Rai alias Kalu Rai alighted from the tempo and handed over a white plastic carton to the lady named Shakina. It is alleged that the driver, namely, Pankaj Yadav along with accused persons – Shakina and Rajan Rai alias Kalu Rai were apprehended by the police officials.

2.4 Thereafter, a notice under Section 50 of the NDPS Act was served upon them and they were informed that they had the right to be produced before a Magistrate or a Gazzetted Officer prior to their search or such officer can be called to the spot and their search can be conducted in his/her presence.

2.5 Thereafter, the carton recovered from Shakina@Kabiran was checked and it was found to be containing Ganja weighing 25kgs. The carton recovered from Rajan Rai alias Kalu Rai was also checked and was found to be containing 25kgs Ganja as well.

2.6 The content was seized and a seizure memo was drawn and accordingly, the present FIR was registered.

2.7 During the investigation, accused Rajan Kumar Rai disclosed that the applicant used to supply the contraband to one person namely- Gautam Sinha. He stated that he had come to Delhi on the direction of the applicant to deliver the two cartons containing Ganja to Gautam Kumar Sinha and on his directions he delivered the said cartons to accused – Sakina.

2.8 During further investigation, accused Gautam Sinha was also arrested on 05.11.2011 however, the applicant was not apprehended and was declared as proclaimed offender by the learned Trial Court by order dated 20.12.2011.

2.9 After completion of the investigation, the chargesheet in the present case was filed and on 17.08.2018, accused Gautam Kumar Sinha was acquitted by the learned Trial Court and the other accused persons namely Rajan Kumar Rai @ Kalu Rai and Sakina@Kabiran were convicted by the learned Trial Court.

2.10 Thereafter, the applicant was arrested on 15.03.2023 and supplementary chargesheet was filed against him and charges were framed against him for offences under Section 20, 29 of the NDPS Act and Section 174-A IPC.

2.11 The learned Trial Court dismissed the applicant’s regular bail application vide order dated 18.11.2023. Hence, the present application.

3. The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that applicant has been falsely implicated in the present FIR and has been implicated merely on the basis of disclosure statement of the co-accused persons.

4. He submitted that the applicant has been in custody since 15.03.2023 and no purpose would be served by keeping him in further incarceration.

5. He submitted that the allegations against the applicant are based on the statements recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act which are not admissible as evidence against the applicant. He submitted that the same is per se insubstantial. He placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu : (2021) 4 SCC 1 in this regard.

6. He submitted t