Order : FARJAND ALI, J. 1. The jurisdiction of this court has been invoked by way of filing an 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 93/2024 2. Concerned Police Station Bhopalgarh 3. District Jodhpur Rural 4. Offences alleged in the FIR Section 8/15 & 18 NDPS Act 5. Offences added, if any Section 8/29 of the NDPS Act 6. Date of passing of impugned order 10.10.2024 order 2. The facts in nutshell are that on 17.05.2024 SHO, PS Bhopalgarh along with his team conducted raid at the house of one Dinseh @ Kalu and recovered 6.8 Kg opium milk, 700 grams opium and 34 Kg doda post from a room. After usual investigation, he was interrogated and arrested, who while in custody disclosed the name of present petitioner. The first bail application being SBCRLMB No.13235/2024 was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 19.12.2024 and learned trial Court was directed to record the statement of Investigating Officer within three months. Now, Shri Surendra Kumar, Investigating Officer has been examined in trial as P.W.1, hence the instant 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 as he has been booked as an accused in this case on the basis of confessional statement made by principal accused. 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. I have heard and considered the submissions made by both the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. Perusal of the record revealing that the principal accused Dinesh alias Kalu while in police custody disclosed the name of the petitioner. It is further submitted that this investigating officer received the first formal information under Section 27 from the accused Dinesh on 17.05.2024. 6. Perusal of the record revealing that the principal accused Dinesh alias Kalu while in police custody disclosed the name of the petitioner. It is further submitted that this investigating officer received the first formal information under Section 27 from the accused Dinesh on 17.05.2024. It is further revealing from the statement of P.W. 1 Surendra Kumar, Investigating Officer that on the basis of confessional statement of principal accused Dinesh, the present petitioner has been arraigned as an accused and besides that nothing is on record to connect to him with alleged offence. 7. It is an admitted case of the prosecution that when the search and seizure was conducted, the petitioner was not present on the spot from which the recovery has been affected. It is alleged that the present petitioner has been made accused on the basis of the statements of co-accused. In the case at hand, 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 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 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. 8. 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 petitioners, 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. 9. It has been held by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of Mohd. Inayatullah Vs. 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. 9. 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.” 10. 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 statements 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 petitioners are released on bail they will flee from justice and will not be available for trial. 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 petitioners. 11. It is nigh well settled law that at a pre-conviction stage; bail is a rule and denial from the same should be an exception. The purpose behind keeping an accused behind the bars during trial would be to secure his presence on the day of conviction so that he may receive the sentence as would be awarded to him. Otherwise, it is the rule of Crimnal Jurisprudence that he shall be presumed innocent until the guilt is proved. 12. The purpose behind keeping an accused behind the bars during trial would be to secure his presence on the day of conviction so that he may receive the sentence as would be awarded to him. Otherwise, it is the rule of Crimnal Jurisprudence that he shall be presumed innocent until the guilt is proved. 12. Accordingly, the instant bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is 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.