Vala vs State Of Rajasthan (2024:Rj-Jd:24590)

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Vala vs State Of Rajasthan (2024:Rj-Jd:24590) on 29 May, 2024

Author: Farjand Ali

Bench: Farjand Ali

[2024:RJ-JD:24590]

          HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                           JODHPUR
      S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 6183/2024

 Vala S/o Sh Kachra, Aged About 48 Years, R/o Village Morila,
 Holi-Fala, P.S. Salumbar, Distt - Salumbar Raj. (Presently Lodged
 In Distt Jail, Salumbar)
                                                                      ----Petitioner
                                       Versus
 State Of Rajasthan, Through PP
                                                                    ----Respondent


For Petitioner(s)            :     Mr. Shambhoo Singh Rathore
For Respondent(s)            :     Mr. S.K. Bhati, PP


                  HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

Order 29/05/2024

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

S.No.                         Particulars of the Case
     1.    FIR Number                                 255/2023
     2.    Concerned Police Station                   Salumber
     3.    District                                   Salumber
     4.    Offences alleged in the FIR                 Under Section 8/20 of the
                                                       NDPS Act
     5.    Offences added, if any                      --

6. Date of passing of impugned 14.05.2024 order

2. It is contended on behalf of the accused-petitioner that no case for the alleged offences is made out against him and his incarceration is not warranted. There are no factors at play in the case at hand that may work against grant of bail to the (Downloaded on 03/06/2024 at 08:35:51 PM) [2024:RJ-JD:24590] (2 of 5) [CRLMB-6183/2024] accused-petitioner and he has been made an accused based on conjectures and surmises. The co-accused Geba S/o Shri Nanga has already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 06.03.2024 in S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No.129/2024.

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. I have considered the submissions made by both the parties and have perused the material available on record. It is not disputed that the similarly situated co-accused Geba S/o Shri Nanga has already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 06.03.2024 in S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No.129/2024. The relevant para Nos.4 to 7 of the said bail application is reproduced herein below:

"5. Heard and perused the material available on record. The brief facts of this case are that contraband poppy husk weighing 90 kgs came to be recovered from the thatched house was situated between the houses owned by Bheru Lal Gurjar and Bhanwar Gurjar respectively and which was allegedly in possession of co-accused Bheru Lal from whom the recovery was effected. On the basis of the confessional statement of co- accused Bherulal, present petitioner has been roped in this matter and it was alleged that three persons including present petitioner provided the contraband to him. (Downloaded on 03/06/2024 at 08:35:51 PM) [2024:RJ-JD:24590] (3 of 5) [CRLMB-6183/2024] No evidence has been collected by the agency to substantiate the above allegation. It is the admitted case of the prosecution that neither the petitioner was found present at the crime scene nor any incriminating material or contraband was recovered from his possession. Except the disclosure statement of the aforementioned two accused, there is no other evidence to book the petitioner in the present case. This court is wondering as to who will come to the witness box in the trial to assert the fact that the person, who made his escape good from the spot was the petitioner. If the Seizing Officer in his statement would narrate the fact that he was informed by the co-accused, then his evidence would be hit by the provisions of the Evidence Act on the premise that the same would be a hearsay evidence.

6. 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. (Downloaded on 03/06/2024 at 08:35:51 PM) [2024:RJ-JD:24590] (4 of 5) [CRLMB-6183/2024]

7. It has been held by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Mohd. Inayatullah Vs. State of Maharastra, reported in AIR 1976 SC 483 that in order to apply Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, only the components which are essential or were the cause of the discovery would be considered to be legal evidence. The relevant paragraph of the judgment reads as under:-

"For the application of Section 27 the statement must be split into its components and to separate the admission portion. Only those components or portions which were the immediate cause of the discovery would be legal evidence and not the rest which must be excised and rejected."

8. It can be manifested from a simple reading of Section 27 of the Evidence Act and the judgments referred above that only information in the form of confession received from disclosure made by an accused cannot be taken as reliable piece of evidence in isolation until there is a discovery or a recovery of another fact to corroborate the said information and prove its veracity. Precisely, it can be said that Section 27 of Evidence Act is an exception to Sections 24, 25 and 26 of Evidence Act, however, the exception limits its admissibility only upto what is envisaged in (Downloaded on 03/06/2024 at 08:35:51 PM) [2024:RJ-JD:24590] (5 of 5) [CRLMB-6183/2024] the statute itself and not beyond that. What would be the evidentiary value of the same cannot be adjudicated at this stage as the same may influence the course of trial, however, in the given circumstances I am sure that the embargo contained under Section 37 of the NDPS Act would not come into the way of granting bail to the petitioner. Be that as it may, no final observations and comments can be made at this stage, as the same may influence the course of trial.

5. In view of the above and on the ground of parity and on the ground that the trial would still take a long time to conclude, it is deemed suitable to grant the benefit of bail to the petitioner in the present matter.

6. Accordingly, the instant bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is ordered that the accused-petitioner as named in the cause title shall be enlarged on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Judge for his appearance before the court concerned on all the dates of hearing as and when called upon to do so.

(FARJAND ALI),J 77-Ashutosh/-

(Downloaded on 03/06/2024 at 08:35:51 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)