ORDER : (Farjand Ali, J.) : 1. The jurisdiction of this court has been invoked by way of filing the instant second bail 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 1. FIR Number 51/2021 2. Concerned Police Station Ramseen 3. District Jalore 4. Offences alleged in the FIR Sections 8/15 & 29 of the NDPS Act 5. Offences added, if any - 6. Date of passing of impugned order 10.11.2022 2. His first bail application being SBCRLMB No.5095/2023 came to be dismissed as not pressed by this Court vide order dated 08.02.2024 with liberty to file fresh bail application after recording the statement of Investigating Officer. Now the statement of Investigating Officer has been recorded.. Hence, the instant application for bail. 3. In nutshell the facts of the case are that on 11.04.2021 Sarita Vishnoi, SHO Police Station Ramseen, District Jalore during nakabandi intercepted an Alto Car bearing registration No. RJ06 CA7552 and upon interrogation the driver disclosed his name as Mukesh Teli at the same time, when this process was under progress, another unnumbered Car, on seeing nakabandi, the driver along with two others left the car in abandoned condition and ran away from the spot but near the Punak Kala, the police apprehended its driver, who disclosed his name to be Shravan, another one was Rakesh and regarding third person Shravan told that he is the resident of Madhya Pradesh except this he knew nothing about him. Upon search of the vehicle, 10 bags weighing 95.860 poppy husk were recovered and during investigation it came to know that the vehicle was registered in the name of one Krishan Kumar @ Rakesh and Raju Lal had loaded drugs in the said vehicle. On the basis of the above, a case under Section 8/15, 29 of the NDPS Act came to registered against accused Shravan and under Section 8/15, 29, 25 of the NDPS Act against the accused Mukesh and investigation is kept pending under Section 173 (8) of the Cr.P.C. against the accused Raju Lal and Krishan Kumar and they were taken in judicial custody. 4. 4. It is contended on behalf of the accused-petitioner that the petitioner is arrested in this 16.09.2022 on the basis of statement of co-accused, however he was not present at the spot thus, no case for the alleged offences is made out against him and his 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. 4. 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. 5. Have considered the submissions made by both the parties and have perused the material available on record. 6. Perusal of the record revealing that the petitioner is behind the bars in this case since 16.09.2022. He has been made accused on the basis of statement of co-accused. Neither the present petitioner was present at the spot nor any recovery has been affected from his possession. P.W. 6 Avadesh Shandhu, stated in his statement that on 30.06.2022, he was posted as SHO Ramseen and during investigation petitioner has been made accused on the basis of statement of co-accused although he was not present at the time of alleged recovery and nothing was recovered at his instance. 7. 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. 8. 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. 8. 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.” 9. 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 accusedpetitioner regarding him being made an accused only on the basis of statement of co-accused. 10. The present petitioner had been made accused in this case on the basis of confessional statement of the co-accused and to connect the present petitioner to the alleged recovery, nothing incriminating has been found against him on record. No connecting evidence has been produced so as to add direct nexus between the petitioner and other persons from whom the contraband was recovered. No connecting evidence has been produced so as to add direct nexus between the petitioner and other persons from whom the contraband was recovered. 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 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, 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. 11. Moving on to the impediments contained under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, it is considered relevant to refer to the recent ruling passed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Mohd Muslim @ Hussain V. State (NCT OF DELHI) Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) passed by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.915 of 2023 vide order dated 28.03.2023, wherein while discussing the parameters of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, it was held that the provision cannot be construed in a manner that would render the grant of bail impossible. The accused-appellant in the aforementioned case was directed to be enlarged on bail looking to the long period of incarceration. The paragraphs of Mohd. Muslim @ Hussain (supra) relevant to the present matter are reproduced below: “18. The conditions which courts have to be cognizant of are that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is “not guilty of such offence” and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. What is meant by “not guilty” when all the evidence is not before the court? It can only be a prima facie determination. That places the court’s discretion within a very narrow margin. Given the mandate of the general law on bails (Sections 436, 1 Special Leave Petition (CRL.) NO(S). 915 of 2023, decided on 28.03.2023. What is meant by “not guilty” when all the evidence is not before the court? It can only be a prima facie determination. That places the court’s discretion within a very narrow margin. Given the mandate of the general law on bails (Sections 436, 1 Special Leave Petition (CRL.) NO(S). 915 of 2023, decided on 28.03.2023. 437 and 439, CrPC) which classify offences based on their gravity, and instruct that certain serious crimes have to be dealt with differently while considering bail applications, the additional condition that the court should be satisfied that the accused (who is in law presumed to be innocent) is not guilty, has to be interpreted reasonably. Further the classification of offences under Special Acts (NDPS Act, etc.), which apply over and above the ordinary bail conditions required to be assessed by courts, require that the court records its satisfaction that the accused might not be guilty of the offence and that upon release, they are not likely to commit any offence. These two conditions have the effect of overshadowing other conditions. In cases where bail is sought, the court assesses the material on record such as the nature of the offence, likelihood of the accused co-operating with the investigation, not fleeing from justice: even in serious offences like murder, kidnapping, rape, etc. On the other hand, the court in these cases under such special Acts, have to address itself principally on two facts: likely guilt of the accused and the likelihood of them not committing any offence upon release. This court has generally upheld such conditions on the ground that liberty of such citizens have to -in cases when accused of offences enacted under special laws – be balanced against the public interest. 19. A plain and literal interpretation of the conditions under Section 37 (i.e., that Court should be satisfied that the accused is not guilty and would not commit any offence) would effectively exclude grant of bail altogether, resulting in punitive detention and unsanctioned preventive detention as well. Therefore, the only manner in which such special conditions as enacted under Section 37 can be considered within constitutional parameters is where the court is reasonably satisfied on a prima facie look at the material on record (whenever the bail application is made) that the accused is not guilty. Therefore, the only manner in which such special conditions as enacted under Section 37 can be considered within constitutional parameters is where the court is reasonably satisfied on a prima facie look at the material on record (whenever the bail application is made) that the accused is not guilty. Any other interpretation, would result in complete denial of the bail to a person accused of offences such as those enacted under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.” (Emphasis Supplied) 12. In Rabi Prakash Vs. State of Odisha passed in Special leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.(s) 4169/2023, Hon’ble the Apex Court has again passed an order dated 13th July, 2023 dealing this issue and has held that the provisional liberty(bail) overrides the prescribed impediment in the statute under Section 37 of the NDPS Act as liberty directly hits one of the most precious fundamental rights envisaged in the Constitution, that is, the right to life and personal liberty contained in Article 21. 13. At the stage of hearing of a bail plea pending trial, although this Court is not supposed to make any definite opinion or observation with regard to the discrepancy and legal defect appearing in the case of prosecution as the same may put a serious dent on the State’s case yet at the same time, this Court can not shut its eye towards the non-compliance of the mandatory provision, almost two years of incarceration pending trial, failure of compliance with the procedure of sampling and seizure and the serious issue of competence of seizure officer. In the case of Mohd. Muslim @ Hussain (Supra) it has been propounded that at the stage of hearing a bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C., although it is not possible to make a definite opinion that they are not guilty of the alleged crime but for the limited purpose for the justifiable disposal of the bail applications, a tentative opinion can be formed that the material brought on record is not sufficient enough to attract the embargo contained under Section 37 of the NDPS Act. Though specific arguments have not been conveyed but looking to the fact that the accused is in custody, this court feels that the accused are not supposed to establish a case in support of his innocence rather his detention is required to be justified at the instance of the prosecution, therefore, this court went deep into the facts of the case and the manner in which the entire proceedings have been undertaken. If other surrounding factors align in consonance with the statutory stipulations, the personal liberty of an individual can not encroached upon by keeping him behind the bars for an indefinite period of time pending trial. In view of the above, it is deemed suitable to grant the benefit of bail to the petitioner. 14. Accordingly, the instant second bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is ordered that the accused-petitioner, named above, shall be enlarged on bail provided he 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 his appearance before the court concerned on all the dates of hearing as and when called upon to do so.