Allowed

Mukesh v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC30 Oct 2023CRLMB/2531/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a connected bail application involving NDPS charges, the High Court allowed bail holding that conviction based solely on Section 27 evidence without physical recovery of contraband from the accused is insufficient at the trial stage to deny bail under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.

What did the court decide?

Bail allowed on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000 with two sureties of Rs.25,000 each.

Mukesh Vs State of Rajasthan — Narcotics (NDPS) | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

[CRLMB-6594/2023]

¶2

(1 of 5)

¶3

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶4

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 2^nd Bail Application No. 6594/2023

¶5

Udai Lal S/o Dhanraj Dhakad, Aged About 36 Years, R/o Tai Ka Kheda @ Bhuijiya Kheri, Sadar Nimbahera Police Station, District Chittorgarh. (Lodged In Central Jail, Chittorgarh)

¶6

----Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶9

----Respondent

¶10

Connected With

¶11

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 2^nd Bail Application No. 2531/2023 Mukesh S/o Sri Chaggan Lal Dangi, Aged About 30 Years, Dangiyo Ka Mohalla, Satkhanda, Sadar Nimbahera Police Station, Nimbahera, Dist. Chittorgarh. (Lodged In Dist. Jail, Chittorgarh).

¶12

----Petitioner

¶13

Versus

¶14

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶15

----Respondent

¶16

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Bhagirath Ray Bishnoi Mr. Surendra Singh Shaktawat For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.S. Rajpurohit, PP

¶17

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

¶18

Order

¶19

30/10/2023

¶20

The jurisdiction of this court has been invoked by way of filing an instant applications under Section 439 CrPC at the instance of accused-petitioners. The requisite details of the matter are tabulated herein below:

¶21

S.No		Particulars of	the Case
.
1.	FIR Number		No.199/2021

¶22

(2 of 5)

¶23

[CRLMB-6594/2023]

¶24

Concerned Police Station Sadar Nimbahera 3. District Chittorgarh 4. Offences alleged in the FIR Sections 8/15 of NDPS Act

¶25

Offences added, if any 8/25 and 8/29 of NDPS Act

¶26

Date of passing of impugned 01.02.2023 order (SBCRLMB-6594/2023)

¶27

Date of passing of impugned 04.01.2023 order (SBCRLMB-2531/2023)

¶28

The first bail applications of petitioners came to be dismissed as not pressed by a this Court vide order dated 21.12.2022. Now, seizure officer has been examined, hence the present second bail applications are filed.

¶29

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 several flaws and laches in the case of the prosecution. It is the admitted case of the prosecution that neither the petitioners were found present at the crime scene nor any incriminating material or contraband were recovered from their possession. They have been made accused on the strength of confessional statement allegedly made by coaccused during police custody which is otherwise not admissible in evidence by virtue of Sections 25 and 26 of Indian Evidence Act. The said disclosure statement does not come within the ambit of Section 27 of Indian Evidence Act. He submits that for booking an accused for the accusation of the offence committed under Section 29 of the NDPS Act, there must be some corroborative evidence. Since nothing is there on record from which involvement of the accused can be presumed, therefore, the embargo under Section

¶30

(3 of 5) [CRLMB-6594/2023]

¶31

37 of NDPS Act do not come in way of releasing the petitioners on bail. 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.

¶32

Contrary to the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor opposes the bail application and submits that the recovered contraband is way above the demarcated commercial quantity and therefore, in view of the bar contained under Section 37 of NDPS Act, no case of bail is made out.

¶33

Have considered the submissions made by both the parties and have perused the material available on record. 6. It is an admitted case of the prosecution that when the search and seizure was conducted the petitioners were not present in or near the tractor from which the recovery has been affected. It is alleged that the co-accused- Prakash disclosed this fact to the I.O. that petitioner- Udai Lal was driving the tractor and except his confessional statement, there is no other convincing evidence against him. It is revealing from the cross-examination of the I.O. that there is no ocular evidence against accused Mukesh and he has been roped in only on the basis of the revelation arrived at from the investigation and the call details of accused Prakash that both of them were taking to each other when the incident took place. It was also admitted by the I.O. that though they did not belong to the same village, their villages are adjacent to each other which further reflects that they might be familiar with each other from before.

¶34

[CRLMB-6594/2023]

¶35

(4 of 5)

¶36

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.

¶37

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:

¶38

“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.”

¶39

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.

¶40

[CRLMB-6594/2023]

¶41

(5 of 5)

¶42

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.

¶43

Having regard to the totality of facts and circumstances as available on record and upon a consideration of the arguments advanced, at this stage of infancy of trial, this Court refrains from passing any comments over the admissibility of evidence and the quality of evidence yet it is of the firm opinion that the appellant deserves to be enlarged on bail in this case.

¶44

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 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 before the court concerned on all the dates of hearing as and when called upon to do so.

¶45

(FARJAND ALI),J

¶46

407-408-Mamta/-

Mukesh v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mukesh v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nemichand Vs Sanjay Kumar Jain

Kur Singh Vs Heera Lal

Pawan Kumar Vs State of Rajasthan

Devi Lal Vs State of Rajasthan

Norat Vs State of Rajasthan

State of Rajasthan Vs Babu Lal Choudhary