Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Ranjeet Singh @ Sonu vs State Of Rajasthan (2024:Rj-Jd:38827) on 19 September, 2024

Author: Farjand Ali

Bench: Farjand Ali

[2024:RJ-JD:38827]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                             JODHPUR
   S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous II Bail Application No. 9356/2024
 Ranjeet Singh @ Sonu S/o Sh. Barkha Singh Mazhabi Sikh, Aged
 About 24 Years, R/o Village Boparai Patti, Ps Sadar Patti, Dist.
 Tarantaran, Punjab. (Lodged In Central Jail, Sriganganagar)
                                                       ----Petitioner
                               Versus
 State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
                                                    ----Respondent
                           Connected With
    S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 10856/2024
 Gurjant Singh @ Lali S/o Sh. Lakha Singh, Aged About 30 Years,
 R/o Kantiwala, Dist. Tarantaran,punjab (Lodged In Dist. Jail
 Sriganganagar)
                                                       ----Petitioner
                               Versus
 State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
                                                    ----Respondent


For Petitioner(s)         :     Mr. Sunil Vishnoi
                                Mr. Aakash Kukkar
For Respondent(s)         :     Mr. N.K. Gurjar, GA-cum-AAG assisted
                                by Mr. Rajesh Bhati
                                Mr. Yogendra Singh Charan


           HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

Order 19/09/2024

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

filing the applications under Section 439 Cr.P.C. at the

instance of accused-petitioners. The requisite details of the

matter are tabulated herein below:

S.No.                      Particulars of the Case

  2.    Concerned Police Station                    Sadar Ganganagar
  3.    District                                    Gangangar
  4.    Offences alleged in the FIR                    Under Sections 8/21 &
                                                         29 of the NDPS Act
  5.    Offences added, if any                      --

6. Date of passing of impugned 12.07.2024 order (In CRLMB No.9356/2024)

7. Date of passing of impugned 08.07.2024 order (In CRLMB

[2024:RJ-JD:38827] (2 of 7) [CRLMB-9356/2024]

No.10856/2024)

2. It is contended on behalf of the accused-petitioners that no

case for the alleged offences is made out against them and

their 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-petitioners and they have been made accused

based on conjectures and surmises.

3. Contrary to the submissions of learned counsel for the

petitioners, learned Public Prosecutor as opposes the bail

applications 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.

5. Co-accused of this case Kulvindra Singh @ Daudi, Har Preet

Singh @ Happy and Sanjay Jakhar have already been

enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 02.07.2024.

The relevant portion of the said bail is reproduced

hereinbelow:-

"4. It is emanating from the material available on record that admittedly, the contraband came to be recovered from a vehicle which was being driven by the accused Ravindra Kumar @ Vicky and Rakesh Kumar was also sitting by his side whereas the other two persons Vakil Singh and Ranveer Singh @ Barad were found sitting on the back seat of the vehicle. On search 420 gms. Heroine along with Rs.3,51,900/- were recovered. The quantity of recovered contraband falls within the category of commercial quantity. It is the case of the prosecution that the

[2024:RJ-JD:38827] (3 of 7) [CRLMB-9356/2024]

said accused Ravindra Kumar @ Vicky and Rakesh Kumar made a disclosure to the Police Officer that they procured the contraband from one Kulvindra Singh, who procured the same from Harpreet Singh. Prima facie, it is revealing that except the aforementioned disclosure made by the accused while in police custody to a police officer, there is no other evidence available on record against the present petitioner, which could connect him with the alleged crime.

5. 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. 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 in police custody on the basis of which the present petitioners have 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.

[2024:RJ-JD:38827] (4 of 7) [CRLMB-9356/2024]

6. 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."

7. 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-petitioners regarding they being made an accused only on the basis of statement of co- accused.

8. The another aspect which is relevant for the just disposal of the instant bail applications would be that the applicability of doctrine of res-gestae. Res- gestae is a latin term which means "things done" or

[2024:RJ-JD:38827] (5 of 7) [CRLMB-9356/2024]

"things transacted". It refers to the issue related to the evidence or the circumstances, as well as other evidence that are contemptuous with or related to the fact in issue. The doctrine of res-gestae explains a spontaneous statement made by someone soon after an occurrence, before the human mind has a chance to make up a fake story. Ordinarily, it is presumed that soon after the incident or during that course, a man would spontaneously tell the truth and at the same time, it suggests bleak possibility of distortion of fact or cooking up a false story. Here, in this case, although it is the story of the prosecution that when the accused persons named above Ravindra Kumar @ Vicky, Rakesh Kuamr, Vakil Singha and Ranveer Singh were apprehended by the police and when they were asked as to where from they obtained the contraband then spontaneously or instantaneously, it was replied by the accused Ravindra Kumar that the contraband was procured from one Kulvinder Singh, which was purchased from Harpreeet Singh. As on date, it can be presumed that the spontaneous and instantaneous disclosure by the above mentioned accused may be true but at the same time, it can be ignored that nothing was recovered from the petitioners and this fact also cannot lose sight of common understanding that how much time had spent between the apprehension of the accused and the interrogation made to them in pursuance of which the reply was made. The length of interval which might have occurred between the recovery of contraband and the disclosure allegedly made by the accused Ravindra Kumar to the police officer cannot be ignored. This Court feels that utterances of words during the course of incident or immediately whereafter falls within the doctrine of res-gestae but

[2024:RJ-JD:38827] (6 of 7) [CRLMB-9356/2024]

any after thought statement would not come under the ambit of doctrine of res-gestae.

9. Be that as it may, this Court feels that in any case the allegation against the petitioner is wholly and mainly depends upon the disclosure made by the co-accused and this Court is of the view that at least there must be something to bolster, corroborate or to give strength to the disclosure statement so as to make sure the charge.

10. Assuming for a moment at this pre-charge stage that the above story is true then it is not comprehensible as to who will appear in the witness box of the trial Court to allege the petitioner or verify the above fact since the principal accused are not going to reiterate the same. If the Seizing Officer would say in the trial that he was told by the accused during interrogation then his statement would fall within the category of "hear say" evidence and would be hit by Section 60 of the Indian Evidence Act. Present one is a bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. and it is settled principle of law that until the guilt of an accused is proved, he shall be presumed innocent; how much time the trial will take to reach at a legitimate conclusion is beyond speculation and in my view keeping the petitioners behind the bars until then would not justifiable."

6. In view of the above and on the ground of parity as well as

considering the fact that there is high probability that the trial

may take long time to conclude, it is deemed suitable to

grant the benefit of bail to the petitioner in the present

matter.

7. Accordingly, the instant bail applications under Section 439

Cr.P.C. are allowed and it is ordered that the accused-

petitioners as named in the cause title shall be enlarged on

[2024:RJ-JD:38827] (7 of 7) [CRLMB-9356/2024]

bail provided each of them 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 their appearance