Balvindra Singh @ Gora vs The State Of Rajasthan ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 9245 Raj

Citation : 2023 Latest Caselaw 9245 Raj
Judgement Date : 7 November, 2023

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Balvindra Singh @ Gora vs The State Of Rajasthan ... on 7 November, 2023

Bench: Farjand Ali

[2023:RJ-JD:38926]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 14331/2023

Balvindra Singh @ Gora S/o Shri Balwant Singh, Aged About 39 Years, R/o Fatehgarh Churiya Road Nazad Hanuman Mandir Preet Nagar, Nangli, Amritsar, Tehsil And Dist. Amritsar (Punjab)

----Petitioner Versus The State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Priya Bishnoi For Respondent(s) : Mr. A. R. Choudhary, PP

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

Order

07/11/2023

1. The jurisdiction of this court has been invoked by way of

filing an instant applications under Section 439 CrPC at the

instance of accused-petitioners. The requisite details of the matter

are tabulated herein below:

S.No                          Particulars of the Case
.
     1.    FIR Number                                  No.51/2023
     2.    Concerned Police Station                    Ghamoodwali
     3.    District                                    Sriganganagar
     4.    Offences alleged in the FIR                 Sections 8/15 and 25 of
                                                       NDPS Act
     5.    Offences added, if any                      Section 29 of NDPS Act
     6.    Date of passing of impugned 17.10.2023
           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 several flaws and laches

[2023:RJ-JD:38926] (2 of 5) [CRLMB-14331/2023]

in the case of the prosecution. 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. He has been made accused on the

strength of confessional statement allegedly made by co-accused

Vinod during police custody which is otherwise not admissible in

evidence by virtue of Sections 25 and 26 of Indian Evidence Act.

The said disclosure statement does not come within the ambit of

Section 27 of Indian Evidence Act. He submits that for booking an

accused for the accusation of the offence committed under Section

29 of the NDPS Act, there must be some corroborative evidence.

Since nothing is there on record from which involvement of the

accused can be presumed, therefore, the embargo under Section

37 of NDPS Act do not come in way of releasing the petitioners on

bail. There are no factors at play in the case at hand that may

work against grant of bail to the accused-petitioner and he has

been made an accused based on conjectures and surmises.

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. Have considered the submissions made by both the parties

and have perused the material available on record.

5. It is an admitted case of the prosecution that when the

search and seizure was conducted the petitioner was not present

in or near the car from which the recovery has been affected. It is

alleged that the said principal-accused Vinod disclosed this fact to

[2023:RJ-JD:38926] (3 of 5) [CRLMB-14331/2023]

the I.O. that the present petitioner sold the contraband to the

him. 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 on the basis of which the

present petitioner has 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. 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.

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

[2023:RJ-JD:38926] (4 of 5) [CRLMB-14331/2023]

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 or 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 the

statute itself and not beyond that. No apprehension has been

shown by the Public Prosecutor that if the petitioner is released on

bail he will flee from justice and will not be available for trial.