Order : (FARJAND ALI, J.) 1. The jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked by way of filing an application(s) under Section 439 CrPC at the instance of accused-petitioners. The requisite details of the matter are tabulated herein below: S.No. Particulars of the Case 1. FIR Number 245/2023 2. Concerned Police Station Begun 3. District Chittorgarh 4. Offences alleged in the FIR Section 8/15 of the NDPS Act 5. Offences added, if any Section 8/29 of the NDPS Act 6. Date of passing of impugned order (SBCRLM2ndB No.4076/2025) 05.02.2025 6. Date of passing of impugned order (SBCRLM2ndB No.349/2025) 29.11.2024 2. The concise facts of the case as alleged in the FIR are that on 09.09.2023 Sub Inspector Devendra Kumar along with his team intercepted a XUV-500 Car bearing registration No.HR26BP7804, upon suspicion interrogated the persons sitting therein whereupon they disclosed their names as Babu Khan and Vinod Guwaria and during search seven bags of poppy husk (total 131 Kg in weight) got recovered. After search and seizure they were arrested; a case as stated above under the NDPS Act has been registered against them. During their custody, on the basis of confessional statement, the petitioner Shamboo Lal has been booked as an accused and arrested on 28.07.2024 in this case. The first bail application being SBCRLMB Nos.13738/2024 (Shamboolal) & 6934/2024 (Babu Khan) came to be dismissed by this Court vide orders dated 20.11.2024 & 08.08.2024. 3. 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 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 an accused based on conjectures and surmises. 4. Contrary to the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners, 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. (SBCRLMB No.4076/2025) 6. 4. Contrary to the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners, 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. (SBCRLMB No.4076/2025) 6. A perusal of the record revealing that the petitioner Shamboolal was not present at the spot and he has booked as an accused on the basis of confessional statement given by the co- accused during their custody 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 corroboration 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. This court is of the view that at least there must be some corroboration 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. (SBCRLMB No.349/2025) 11. I have minutely gone through the statement of Devendra Kumar PW1, the Sub-Inspector of Police. A glimpse over his testimony revealing that in the first line of his examination-in- chief, he claims to have charge of Police Station Begun, though he was not the posted SHO at the relevant point of time. (SBCRLMB No.349/2025) 11. I have minutely gone through the statement of Devendra Kumar PW1, the Sub-Inspector of Police. A glimpse over his testimony revealing that in the first line of his examination-in- chief, he claims to have charge of Police Station Begun, though he was not the posted SHO at the relevant point of time. When put to cross-examination; at internal Page 7 of his statement, he admits that on the date of incident, he was posted as SHO, PS Parsoli and that on that day, he was not posted SHO of the Police Station Begun. Both Police Station Parsoli and Begun are distinct places and at a distance of around 25 km from each other. The prosecution has failed to produce any documentary or cogent evidence to establish that PW1 Devendra Kumar was the duly appointed SHO of Police Station Begun at the relevant time. On the contrary, the records reflect that Chandrashekhar Khillaniya was the SHO of Police Station Begu on the date of the incident, therefore, PW1 Devendra Kumar had no competence or authority to conduct the seizure or affect arrest in question. Meaning thereby, the Seizure was made by an officer not authorised and competent to do so. The circumstances are showing that the seizure and arrest was made beyond the power and without authority as well. Though, SO No.F.1(3)FD/EX/85 dated 24.01.1986 published in the Rajasthan Gazette Extra., Part IV- C(II), provides that when power is exercised by a Police Inspector other than Police Inspector of the area concerned, such officer shall immediately hand over the person arrested and article seized to the concerned Police Inspector or SHO of the Police Station concerned. However, this proviso would not help the case of the prosecution since the Seizing Officer Devendra Kumar was not an Inspector rather a Sub-Inspector and only those Sub-Inspectors are empowered and authorized to make search and seizure and to exercise the power mentioned under Section 42 of the NDPS Act, who are posted as SHO of their concerned Police Station. Prima facie, there would be no impediment to observe that the seizure was made by an unauthorized person and as a consequence of which the recovery vitiates on this count alone. Prima facie, there would be no impediment to observe that the seizure was made by an unauthorized person and as a consequence of which the recovery vitiates on this count alone. Be that as it may this is not the final finding of this Court since the matter is still under trial and it would be finally adjudicated by the learned trial judge after taking all the evidence on record and this Court has made mention of the above thing only for the sake of making a justifiable consideration of embargo contained under Section 37 of the NDPS Act. 12. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that the applicants are in judicial custody since a long, and though an earlier bail applications were dismissed, subsequent examination of prosecution witnesses and the lack of authority of the seizing officer constitute a substantial change in circumstances, the instant bail applications deserves to be accepted. 13. 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 them. Otherwise, it is the rule of Crimnal Jurisprudence that he shall be presumed innocent until the guilt is proved. 14. Accordingly, the instant bail application(s) under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is 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. 15. Before parting, it is made clear that the observations made herein above are for justifiable disposal of the bail application, however, the same shall not influence the trial Judge at any stage of trial.