[ad_1]
Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Suresh vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:35440) on 8 August, 2025
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2025:RJ-JD:35440]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 3rd Bail Application No. 3596/2025
Suresh S/o Shri Bagda Ram, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Saran
Nagar, Banvarla, Police Station Dangiawas, District Jodhpur. (At
Present Lodged In Central Jail, Jodhpur)
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kailash Khillery
For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.S. Rathore, Dy.G.A.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Order
08/08/2025
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 102/2023 2. Concerned Police Station Dangiyawas 3. District Jodhpur city East 4. Offences alleged in the FIR Sections 332, 353 & 307 of the IPC and Sections 8/15 of the NDPS Act; Sections 7/27 and 3/25 (1-B)(a) of the Arms Act 5. Offences added, if any Section 8/29 of the NDPS Act 6. Date of passing of impugned 6.11.2024 order
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on 09.07.2023,
at about 03:20 hours, Mr. B. Aditya, IPS (Probationer), SHO Police
(Downloaded on 13/08/2025 at 09:41:42 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:35440] (2 of 6) [CRLMB-3596/2025]
Station Dangiyawas, along with his team, was conducting a
blockade near Dantiwada bridge. A Creta car (Registration No. GJ
18 BP 7396) approaching at high speed from Kaparada side was
signaled to stop. The driver attempted to run over the police team
with intent to kill. A stop stick was deployed, bursting the tyres,
and the vehicle was pursued and intercepted in front of Bisalpur
Shri Gopal Gaushala Sanwariya Dham. Three occupants were in
the car. One person alighted, fired, and fled; the driver identified
himself as Fusaram, and the co-passenger as Rakesh. The
absconding person was identified as Surendra. A search of the
vehicle, conducted as per law, yielded 300.5 kilograms of illicit
poppy husk in 16 sacks, two live cartridges from the dashboard
box, two number plates (RJ 27 CJ 8095) from beneath the driver’s
seat, and three empty cartridge cases consistent with the reported
firing. During police custody Rakesh disclosed to a police officer
that the said contraband was provided by the present petitioner.
On the basis of the confessional statement of accused Rakesh,
present petitioner has been booked. His second bail application
being SBCRLMB No.14345/2024 has been dismissed by this Court
vide order dated 07.02.2025. Hence the instant bail application.
3. It is contended on behalf of the accused-petitioner that he is
in custody since 16.12.2023; 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.
(Downloaded on 13/08/2025 at 09:41:42 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:35440] (3 of 6) [CRLMB-3596/2025]
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 on the basis of
confessional statement of accused Rakeesh, the present petitioner
has been arraigned as an accused and besides that nothing is on
record to connect the petitioner with alleged offence. Accused
Rakesh has been enlarged on bail by this Court.
8. 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 statement 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.
(Downloaded on 13/08/2025 at 09:41:42 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:35440] (4 of 6) [CRLMB-3596/2025]
9. 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.
10. 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.”
11. 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
(Downloaded on 13/08/2025 at 09:41:42 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:35440] (5 of 6) [CRLMB-3596/2025]
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.
12. 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.
13. 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
(Downloaded on 13/08/2025 at 09:41:42 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:35440] (6 of 6) [CRLMB-3596/2025]
Judge for his appearance before the court concerned on all the
dates of hearing as and when called upon to do so.
(FARJAND ALI),J
42-Mamta/-
(Downloaded on 13/08/2025 at 09:41:42 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
[ad_2]
Source link