Allowed bail application for accused-P with NDPS charges. High Court held that delayed disclosure statement from principal accused lacks corroboration, making implicating evidence illusory. Granted bail subject to bond and sureties.
Accused-P enlarged on bail by providing 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.
[2024:RJ-JD:4121]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 175/2024
Bhanwar Lal S/o Sh. Bhakar Ram, Aged About 33 Years, R/o Ram Nagar Mandala, P.s. Phalodi, Dist. Jodhpur (Raj.). (At Present Lodged In Dist. Jail Sirohi).
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Learned Pp
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Arjun Singh Rathore For Respondent(s) : Mr. A. R. Choudhary, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Order
24/01/2024
| S.No. | Particulars of | the Case |
|---|---|---|
| 1. | FIR Number | 273/2022 |
| 2. | Concerned Police Station | Pindwara |
| 3. | District | Sirohi |
| 4. | Offences alleged in the FIR | Sections 8/15 of NDPS Act. |
| 5. | Offences added, if any | Section 29 of NDPS Act. |
| 6. | Date of passing of impugned order |
11.10.2023 |
the case of the prosecution that a certain quantity of contraband came to be recovered from principal-accused and during investigation, he made a disclosure statement after nine months
[CRLMB-175/2024]
[2024:RJ-JD:4121]
(2 of 4)
of the seizure that the present petitioner escorted the vehicle in which the contraband was recovered. The said disclosure statement does not come within the ambit of Section 27 of Indian Evidence Act. There are several flaws and laches in the case of the prosecution. Since nothing is there on record from which involvement of the accused can be presumed, therefore, the embargo under Section 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-petitioner and he has been made an accused based on conjectures and surmises.
[2024:RJ-JD:4121]
[CRLMB-175/2024]
(3 of 4)
instantly and he revealed the same after a considerably long period of nine months.
“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.”
(4 of 4)
[2024:RJ-JD:4121]
[CRLMB-175/2024]
the statement of the learned counsel for the petitioner regarding dearth of legally admissible evidence. Whether the disclosure statement made by the principal accused before the police while in custody would be admissible in evidence or not, is the question open to moot and at this stage of the proceeding, this Court would refrain from passing any comment as the same may influence the judicial proceeding pending before the trial court. The trial would still take a long time to conclude, it is deemed suitable to grant the benefit of bail to the petitioner in the present matter.
(FARJAND ALI),J
84-Mamta/-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether bail should be granted to an accused facing NDPS charges where the only evidence against him is a delayed disclosure statement from a principal accused not mentioned in the FIR.
Whether the disclosure statement under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act can standalone to implicate the accused given the lack of corroborative evidence.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Mohd. Inayatullah Vs. State of MaharastraReferred¶26
Mohd. Inayatullah Vs. State of Maharastra, AIR 1976 SC 483 · Who else cites this
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Bhanwar Lal S/o Sh. Bhakar Ram
State Of Rajasthan
Farjand Ali
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
