Devi Lal vs State Of Rajasthan

Farjand Ali, J

Despite service, no one has appeared on behalf of the complainant/victim.

The jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked by way of filing an application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. 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

255/2022

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

12.04.2023

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.

Contrary to the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional Government Advocate opposes the bail application and submits that the present case is not fit for enlargement of accused on bail.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Public Prosecutor and perused the challan paper.

It is reflecting from the perusal of the charge-sheet that the contraband allegedly came to be recovered from one Rajkumar on 15.09.2022. It is noteworthy that no disclosure was made with regard to the procurement of the contraband by the said accused Raj Kumar at the place of recovery. After seven days, it is alleged that during interrogation, the said Raj Kumar made a disclosure statement to the Investigating Officer that he had obtained the contraband from the accused, however, in pursuance of or in furtherance of the information supplied to him, nothing new was recovered except a confession, the admissibility of which, is under question and the same can be adjudicated after a full fledged trial. Section 24 of the Indian Evidence Act makes admission inadmissible if it is obtained by coercion, threat or inducement. Sections 25 and 26 of the Indian Evidence Act become inadmissible, if the same is made by the accused to a Police Officer or while in custody and if the same is in the nature of confession. Section 27 is an exception to Sections 24, 25 and 26 of the Indian Evidence Act which is admissible to the extent that it is enumerated in the Section itself, i.e., to the fact distinctly discovered thereby. Thus, it is a strong arguable case. Be that as it may, I am of the firm view that the fetter contained under Section 37 of the NDPS Act would not come in the way of granting bail. There is high probability that the trial may take long time to conclude. In light of these facts and circumstances, it is deemed suitable to grant the benefit of bail to the petitioner in the present matter.

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.