A confession made in police custody requires corroboration to be admissible, and indefinite detention without sufficient evidence is unjustifiable.

                                                                                                                                                                    Order

23/09/2024

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 16.05.2023 Shri Devaram Sub- Inspector, PS Rohida, Sirohi along with him team during patrolling, intercepted I-20 Car bearing registration No.RJ06 CC5822 and interrogated the driver, who disclosed his name as Vinod and at that time one another Verna Car bearing registration No. RJ06 CB8260 came there but on seeing the police team, the driver of the Verna Car escaped from the spot and the other person sitting therein disclosed his name as Pawan Choubisa, who further stated that the person who escaped was Nakshtra Giri R/o Chittorgarh. When the driver of I-20 i.e. Vinod was further interrogated, he stated that he was escorting the car of Pawan Choubisa, in which, poppy husk was being transported. During search, five plastic bags weighing 80 Kg Poppy husk was recovered from the Verna Car. On the basis of the above, the petitioner was arrested and a case under Sections 8/15 & 29 of the NDPS Act was registered against the accused Pawan Choubisa and Vinod.

3. 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. The petitioner is behind the bars 16.05.2023. 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 an accused based on conjectures and surmises.

4. Contrary to the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners, 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 considered the submissions made by both the parties and have perused the material available on record.

6. Perusal of the record revealing that Investigating Officer has been examined in the trial and his statement has been recorded wherein he admitted that no recovery was affected from the present petitioner. As per him, the accused Pawan Choubisa was accompanying the principal accused Nakshtra Giri in the vehicle but he alighted before the recovery took place however, the IO admits that the petitioner did not embark in the vehicle from the place where the poppy husk was loaded in the Verna Car. The another angle of the case would be that the above narrated story is totally based upon confession made by the accused Nakstra Giri to a police officer while in custody and there is nothing on record to corroborate or verify the above fact of accompanying and alighting. The Investigating Officer further admits that the tower location petitioner’s mobile phone was not traced out at the relevant place.

7. There is substance in the plea raised by learned counsel that except the confession made by the accused while in custody to the police, nothing is on record to connect the petitioner with the alleged recovery. It is further argued that until and unless anything is discovered or recovered in pursuance of the information provided under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, the mere confession cannot be taken as a piece of evidence and, therefore, a person cannot be detained indefinitely on that count. Thus, detention of an individual based on such tainted disclosure statement by the accused himself cannot be made basis for an indefinite detention.

8. If it is an information under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, something is required to