Order

19/09/2024

1. The jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked by way of filing the applications under Section 439 Cr.P.C. at the instance of accused-petitioners. The requisite details of the matter are tabulated herein below:

2. It is contended on behalf of the accused-petitioners that no case for the alleged offences is made out against them and their 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-petitioners and they have been made accused based on conjectures and surmises.

3. Contrary to the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Public Prosecutor as opposes the bail applications and submits that the present case is not fit for enlargement of accused on bail.

4. I Have considered the submissions made by both the parties and have perused the material available on record.

5. Co-accused of this case Kulvindra Singh @ Daudi, Har Preet Singh @ Happy and Sanjay Jakhar have already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 02.07.2024. The relevant portion of the said bail is reproduced hereinbelow:-

“4. It is emanating from the material available on record that admittedly, the contraband came to be recovered from a vehicle which was being driven by the accused Ravindra Kumar @ Vicky and Rakesh Kumar was also sitting by his side whereas the other two persons Vakil Singh and Ranveer Singh @ Barad were found sitting on the back seat of the vehicle. On search 420 gms. Heroine along with Rs.3,51,900/- were recovered. The quantity of recovered contraband falls within the category of commercial quantity. It is the case of the prosecution that the said accused Ravindra Kumar @ Vicky and Rakesh Kumar made a disclosure to the Police Officer that they procured the contraband from one Kulvindra Singh, who procured the same from Harpreet Singh. Prima facie, it is revealing that except the aforementioned disclosure made by the accused while in police custody to a police officer, there is no other evidence available on record against the present petitioner, which could connect him with the alleged crime.

5. 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 information furnished under Section 27 of the Evidence Act regarding the culpability of the petitioner, nothing new was disclosed, recovered or discovered. This court is of the view that at least there must be some corroborations or support to verify the confession made by the accused to the Police Officer while in lockup. In the case at hand, nothing has been recovered from the present petitioner and no other legally admissible evidence that could connect the petitioner to the crime or to the other co-accused persons for that matter has come to the fore, thus, the disclosure statement of the co-accused in police custody on the basis of which the present petitioners have been made an accused in this case remains just illusory knowledge and does not become a fact proved as no fact has been discovered in consequence of the information disclosed by the co-accused, thus, it cannot be said with certainty that the accused can be roped in for commission of offence under Section 29 of the NDPS Act.

6. It has been held by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of Mohd. Inayatullah Vs. State of Maharastra, reported in AIR 197