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
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
[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.
[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.
[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
[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/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
