Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Kanhaiya Lal vs State Of Rajasthan on 31 May, 2024
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2024:RJ-JD:23028]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 4th Bail Application No. 2916/2023
Kanhaiya Lal S/o Sh. Chunni Lal Meghwal Balai, Aged About 50
Years, Birbavdi, P.s. Begun Dist. Chittorgarh. (At Present Lodged
In Sub Jail, Shahpura).
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vijay Raj Bishnoi
Mr. B.R. Bishnoi
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Arun Kumar, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Order
ORDER PRONOUNCED ON ::: 31/05/2024
ORDER RESERVED ON ::: 18/03/2024
BY THE COURT:-
1. The jurisdiction of this court has been invoked by way of
filing the instant 4th 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 Jahajpura
3. District Bhilwara
4. Offences alleged in the FIR Section 8/15 of the NDPS
Act
5. Offences added, if any Section 8/29 of the NDPS
Act
6. Date of passing of impugned 20.01.2023
order (Bail Appln. No.2916/2023
[2024:RJ-JD:23028] (2 of 5) [CRLMB-2916/2023]
2. The first, second and third bail applications of accused
Kanahiyal Lal being SBCRLMB Nos.5215/2021, 13913/2022 &
13588/2022 came to be dismissed as withdrawn by the
Coordinate Bench and this Court vide orders dated 27.08.2021,
21.01.2022 & 21.12.2022.
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 accused-
petitioner and he has been made an accused based on conjectures
and surmises. He has not been named in the FIR and no recovery
has been effected at his instance.
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 perused the material available on record.
5. Admittedly, no recovery has been effected from the
petitioner. He has not been named in the FIR. The prosecution has
failed to show any direct nexus between the co-accused and the
present petitioner so also there is no connection between the
recovered article and the petitioner. It seems that the case of
prosecution mainly and wholly based upon confessional statement
made by the co-accused before a police officer while in police
custody. What would be the evidentiary value of the above is a
serious question which this Court is not going to adjudicate at this
[2024:RJ-JD:23028] (3 of 5) [CRLMB-2916/2023]
stage as the same may be fetter for the prosecution. 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 co-accused
Lobichand and Ramzan 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.
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
[2024:RJ-JD:23028] (4 of 5) [CRLMB-2916/2023]
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 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 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.
9. 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
[2024:RJ-JD:23028] (5 of 5) [CRLMB-2916/2023]
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
1-Mamta/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
