In a bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C., the High Court allowed bail to the petitioner charged under the NDPS Act for the trial likely to be long, noting lack of corroboration for a sole confession.
Petitioner enlarged on bail on personal bond of Rs.50,000 with two sureties of Rs.25,000 each.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 2nd Bail Application No. 9233/2022
Amit Singh S/o Maloosingh, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Ward No. 09 Pallu Hall Tenant Of Indrachand Swami Vill. Gudavdi Ps Salasar Dist. Churu (At Present Lodged In Central Jail Hanumangarh)
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through PP
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Hasti Mal Saraswat For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mukesh Trivedi, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Order
04/08/2022
[CRLMB-9233/2022]
(2 of 3)
custody, to a police officer, which is not admissible by virtue of Section 25 & 26 of the Indian Evidence Act. He further submits that to invoke the penal provisions of Section 29 of the NDPS Act, there must be some corroborating piece of evidence(s) to the confession made by the principle accused. It is asserted that the recovery of drug has allegedly been made from possession of one Vijay Kumar and it is told that the said Vijay Kumar disclosed the fact to the Recovery Officer that he brought the tablets from the petitioner five days ago and he was in touch with the petitioner at his mobile No. 96803-67976 with his mobile No. 76650-70250. During the course of the investigation, the Agency collected necessary information from the service provider regarding the subscription of the aforementioned telephone numbers and as per the documents annexed with the challan papers, the subscription of mobile No. 96803-67976 was issued to one Mitthu Lal Kumar S/ o Tulsi Ram Kumar, R/o Mangalwad, Chittorgarh. It is not disputed that no mobile or SIM has been recovered from the petitioner. The Investigating Agency has not conducted the investigation scrupulously as no effort has been made to record the statement of Mitthu Lal Kumar S/o Tulsi Ram Kumar to establish the fact that how the mobile number of Mitthu Lal Kumar used by the petitioner. It is settled that no case pertains to Section 29 of the NDPS Act can be established without verification of confessional statement of the principal accused and there must be some corroboration to the confessional statement of the principal accused. After investigation, charge-sheet has been filed in the matter. No fruitful purpose would be served by keeping the accused-petitioner behind the bars till disposal of the case.
(3 of 3)
[CRLMB-9233/2022]
(FARJAND ALI),J
SAHIL/RAJAT/3
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the accused-petitioner should be enlarged on bail considering the risk of long trial and lack of corroborating evidence.
Whether the prosecution case based solely on a custodial confession violates Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act.
4 provisions across 3 enactments
Amit Singh
State Of Rajasthan
Farjand Ali
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
