Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 1129 (RAJ)

Koshla Ram S/o Kheraj Ram v. State Of Rajasthan,

2024-08-23

FARJAND ALI

body2024
ORDER : 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 245/2022 2. Concerned Police Station Chhoti Sadari 3. District Pratapgarh 4. Offences alleged in the FIR Section 8/15 of the NDPS Act 5. Offences added, if any Sections 8/29 of the NDPS Act & Sections 379 & 411 of the IPC 6. Date of passing of impugned order 24.05.2024 2. The first bail application came to be dismissed as not pressed by this Court vide order dated 27.03.2024 passed in SBCRLMB No.2778/2024. While rejecting the first bail application a liberty was given to the petitioner to renew the prayer for bail after filing of the charge sheet. Hence the intant 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 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 challan papers and the other material available to this Court. 6. It is emanating from the record that on 19.07.2022, Gopal Singh, In-charge of Chhoti Sadari along with his team while on patrolling duty between Karanpur and Harisinghji Ka Khera, the police team gave a signal to stop the two Scorpio Cars, which were coming from Karanpur. In both the vehicles alongwith driver one person in each were noticed but they did not respond whereupon the police team tried to stop the said vehicles through stop stick. During that process one tyre of each vehicle jumped upon the stop stick and driver of both the Scorpios turned towards Karanpur. The police team tried to fetch the drivers and another two persons but they made escape their good and fled away from the spot. During that process one tyre of each vehicle jumped upon the stop stick and driver of both the Scorpios turned towards Karanpur. The police team tried to fetch the drivers and another two persons but they made escape their good and fled away from the spot. During search, it was noticed that both the Vehicles are unnumbered and 22 bags weighing 428 Kg and from the another unnumbered vehicle 24 bags weighing 469.5 Kg poppy husk came to be recovered. After usual investigation, a case under Section 8/15 of the NDPS Act got registered against the petitioner on having suspicion upon him that the recovered contraband was procured from one Sunil S/o Karulal which was loaded in the vehicles by Om Prakash and Jimmna Ram and same was to be delivered to the petitioner. 7. A perusal of the police report under Section 173 Cr.P.C, being charge sheet No.01 dated 26.03.2024 revealing that during effecting seizure of first vehicle bearing Chassis No.MA1TA2SJXG2A12095 and the Engine No.WGH4G10596 were mentioned on the another vehicle. Except the contraband nothing was recovered from the said vehicles. After that upon receiving a secret information that recovered contraband belongs to Kosla Ram S/o Kheraj Ram Jat, R/o Bojasar PS Bayatu, District Barmer. He alongwith two others namely Om Prakash and Jimma Ram are indulged in its procurement and illegal transportation of the contraband and they supplied it in the state of Rajasthan and Madhya Pradesh. During trial, Om Prakash passed away and Jimma Ram is absconding. On the basis of this information, the petitioner has been arraigned as an accused in this case. The petitioner is already in custody in another Case No.76/2022 for the offence under Section 8/15, 29 of the NDPS Act at the District Jail, Pratapgarh. It was further revealing from the report that vide order No.557 dated 29.09.2023 the petitioner was interrogated and arrested in this case. 8. A plain reading of the disclosure incorporated in the police report revealing that Constable Shambhu Singh gathered the information regarding seized Scorpio bearing Chassis No.MA1TA2SJXG2A12095 that the said vehicle is WLH4B18346 and registration No.RJ19UT4770. It was further revealing from the report that vide order No.557 dated 29.09.2023 the petitioner was interrogated and arrested in this case. 8. A plain reading of the disclosure incorporated in the police report revealing that Constable Shambhu Singh gathered the information regarding seized Scorpio bearing Chassis No.MA1TA2SJXG2A12095 that the said vehicle is WLH4B18346 and registration No.RJ19UT4770. On the basis of registration number of the vehicle i.e. RJ19UT4770 inquiry was conducted regarding the said vehicle and it came to the notice that its Engine No. is SJF4M21000, which is different from the seized one and its owner is one Nasir Hussan S/o Ikbal Hussan R/o Sadar Kotwali Jodhpur. When Nasir was interrogated, he stated that his vehicle was stolen on 20.10.2021 for which he lodged a case No.436/2021 at the Police Station Pratapgarh, Jodhpur. It is further mentioned in the report that for transportation of the contraband, accused has tampered with the chassis and engine number of the seized vehicles. Regarding another vehicle it has been stated that when an inquiry was made regarding Scorpio bearing Engine No.WGH4G10596 it came to the notice that the said vehicle is registered as MH04 JB0957 in the name of one Aditya Prakash, R/o Maharashtra. When the registered owner was interrogated, he answered that his vehicle was stolen a long back. 9. It is worthwhile to mention here that except the above mentioned information there is not an iota of evidence to show or suggest involvement of the petitioner in commission of crime thus it can be said that except suspicion upon petitioner, there is nothing on record which may insinuate the petitioner or to justify his arrest. 10. It is an admitted case of the prosecution that when the search and seizure was conducted, the petitioner was not present near the vehicles from which the recovery has been made. It is alleged that the present petitioner has been made as an accused on the basis of receiving secret information. In the case at hand, no other legally admissible evidence on record which could connect the petitioner to the crime on the basis of which he has been made an accused in this case. It is alleged that the present petitioner has been made as an accused on the basis of receiving secret information. In the case at hand, no other legally admissible evidence on record which could connect the petitioner to the crime on the basis of which he has been made an accused in this case. Therefore, it is just an illusory knowledge and does not become a fact proved as no fact has been discovered in consequence of the information disclosed 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. 11. 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 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. 12. 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.” 13. 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.” 13. 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 statement 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 petitioner is released on bail he will flee from justice and will not be available for trial. 14. In the given circumstances, the embargo contained under Section 37 of the NDPS Act would not come in the way of granting bail to the petitioner. 15. Accordingly, the instant second bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. are allowed and it is ordered that the accused-petitioner as named in the cause title 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.