Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Mandeep @ Mannu vs State Of Rajasthan (2024:Rj-Jd:24443) on 28 May, 2024
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2024:RJ-JD:24443]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 2nd Bail Application No. 5279/2024
Mandeep @ Mannu S/o Shri Kabla Singh, Aged About 26 Years,
R/o Ward No. 13, Kaliyan P.s. Sadar, Tehsil And Dist. Sri
Ganganagar. (At Present Lodged In Central Jail, Sri
Ganganagar).
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sunil Bishnoi
For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.K. Bhati, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Order
28/05/2024
1. The jurisdiction of this court has been invoked by way of
filing the instant 2nd bail application under Section 439 CrPC at the
instance of accused-petitioner. The requisite details of the matter
are tabulated herein below:
S.No. Particulars of the Case
2. Concerned Police Station Sadar Ganganagar
3. District Ganganagar
4. Offences alleged in the FIR Section 8/22 of the NDPS
Act
5. Offences added, if any Section 29 of the NDPS
Act
6. Date of passing of impugned 24.01.2022
order
[2024:RJ-JD:24443] (2 of 5) [CRLMB-5279/2024]
2. His first bail application being SBCRLMB No.15794/2022 was
dismissed as not pressed by this Court vide order dated
15.02.2024.
3. 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. He is in custody since 17.06.2021
and till now, out of total 24 witnesses only 6 could have been
examined. He has been made accused on the strength of
confessional statement allegedly made by principal accused
Succha Singh 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. 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 is
high probability that the trial may take long time to conclude.
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.
4. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposes the bail
application and submits that the alleged recovered contraband is
way above the demarcated commercial quantity, thus, the
impediment contained under Section 37 of NDPS Act will be
attracted in the factual situation of the present case.
[2024:RJ-JD:24443] (3 of 5) [CRLMB-5279/2024]
5. I have heard and considered the submissions made by both
the parties and perused the challan papers and the other material
available on record.
6. It is the case of the prosecution that on 23.07.2020, during
nakabandi, Sandeep Kumar, SHO of Police Station Sadar, District
Sri Ganganagar apprehended accused Succha Singh. Upon
making search, 100 boxes of 25-25 strip each in all 25,000
tablets of Tramadol Hydrochloride 100 mg and 99 boxes of 25-25
strip each in all 24,750 tablets of Tramadol Hydrochloride 100 mg
were recovered two bags. The total weight of these tablets was
24 Kg. 850 gms whereafter the samples were taken from the
seized contraband for sending the same to the FSL for its
examination. The main source of allegation happens to be the
disclosure made by the principal accused Sucha Singh to a
police officer during his police custody that he purchased the
aforesaid tablets from the present petitioner. Except the above,
there is no evidence even for the namesake to support or
substantiate the charge. Further, out of total 24 witnesses only 6
could have been examined.
7. 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
[2024:RJ-JD:24443] (4 of 5) [CRLMB-5279/2024]
some corroborations or support to verify the confession made by
the accused to the Police Officer while in lockup.
8. 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."
9. 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. This Court is cognizant
of the provisions contained in Section 37 of the NDPS Act but
considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the
accused-petitioner regarding him being made an accused only on
the basis of statement of co-accused, this court is of the opinion
that it is a fit case for grant of bail to the accused petitioner. Be
[2024:RJ-JD:24443] (5 of 5) [CRLMB-5279/2024]
that as it may, no final observations and comments can be made
at this stage, as the same may influence the course of trial.
10. Accordingly, the instant second 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
20-Mamta/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
