Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Govind Singh vs The State Of Rajasthan ... on 27 May, 2025

Author: Farjand Ali

Bench: Farjand Ali

[2025:RJ-JD:26480]

          HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                           JODHPUR
 S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 2nd Bail Application No. 10653/2024

Govind Singh S/o Nanu Singh, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Ward
No. 12 Chanwandiya, Ps Pushkar, Ajmer, Raj. (Lodged In Sub Jail
Nohar, Dist. Hanumangarh)
                                                                         ----Petitioner
                                      Versus
The State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
                                                                    ----Respondent


For Petitioner(s)           :     Mr. Arjun Singh
For Respondent(s)           :     Mr. Surendra Bishnoi, AGA



                 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

Order

27/05/2025

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

filing an 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                  Gogamedi
     3.     District                                  Hanumangarh
     4.     Offences alleged in the FIR               Section 8/15 of the NDPS
                                                      Act
     5.     Offences added, if any                    -
     6.     Date of passing of impugned 11.07.2023
            order

2. Brief facts of the case are that on 15.06.2023, Rajpal, Sub-

Inspector and Acting Station House Officer, was on patrol duty

along with other police personnel. At around 2:20 PM, when they

reached near the underpass adjacent to the temporary police post

[2025:RJ-JD:26480] (2 of 6) [CRLMB-10653/2024]

at Gogamedi, they noticed a car stuck in the mud beneath the

underpass. Another car bearing registration No.RJ-14CD-4237 was

parked outside the underpass, while the car stuck in the mud bore

registration number HR-26-CD-7742.

2.1. Upon inquiry from the occupants of the car parked outside

the underpass, the driver identified himself as Omprakash; the

person seated beside him stated his name as Premsukh; and the

person sitting in the rear seat disclosed his name as Ramniwas.

The person sitting in the driver's seat of the car stuck in the mud

identified himself as Sandeep, and the person pushing the car

disclosed his name as Harish. In accordance with legal procedure,

both vehicles were searched, resulting in the recovery of 2

quintals of doda post (poppy husk) contained in 10 sacks. Upon

being asked, none of the persons could produce any license or

permit for the possession of the said contraband. Based on these

facts, a seizure memo was prepared, and a First Information

Report (FIR) was registered. Upon completion of investigation, a

charge sheet was filed. During the police custody they disclose the

name of the petitioner. On the basis of confessional statement, he

has been arrested. His first bail application being SBCRLMB

No.100200/2023 got dismissed by this Court vide order dated

03.05.2024 with liberty to renew the prayer for bail after the

statement of Investigating Officer is recorded. Now around one

year has been elapsed, the IO has been examined in the trial and

hence the instant bail application.

3. It is contended on behalf of the accused-petitioner that no

case for the alleged offences is made out against him and his

[2025:RJ-JD:26480] (3 of 6) [CRLMB-10653/2024]

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.

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 heard and considered the submissions made by both

the parties and perused the material available on record.

5. Perusal of the record revealing that in one of the vehicle Om

Prakash, Premsukh and Ramniwas were found and in another one

which was stuck in much which was driven by Sandeep and Harish

was pushing it. On the basis of their statement while in police

custody, they disclosed the name of petitioner and on the basis of

confessional statement the present petitioner has been booked

and arrested. The said disclosure was made voluntarily and

without any coercion, and forms a material part of the

investigation under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act.

6. It is revealing from the statement of Investigating Officer

that on the basis of confessional statement of co-accused, the

present petitioner has been arraigned as an accused and besides

that nothing is on record to connect the petitioner with alleged

offence.

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

search and seizure was conducted, the petitioner was not present

[2025:RJ-JD:26480] (4 of 6) [CRLMB-10653/2024]

on the spot from which the recovery has been affected. It is

alleged that the present petitioner has been made accused on the

basis of the statements of co-accused. In the case at hand, 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 and,

therefore, it cannot be said with certainty that the accused can be

roped in for commission of offence under Section 29 of the NDPS

Act.

8. The legal position in this regard is well settled that 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 the prosecution that in pursuance of the information

furnished under Section 27 of the Evidence Act regarding the

culpability of the petitioners, 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.

[2025:RJ-JD:26480] (5 of 6) [CRLMB-10653/2024]

9. 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."

It can be manifested from a simple reading of Section 27 of

the Evidence Act and the judgment referred above that only

information in the form of confession received from disclosure

statements 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 petitioners are released

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