SURENDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant petition has been filed by the bail/applicant/accused, under, Sec. 439 Cr. P.C., wherein he seeks indulgence, of his being ordered to be released from judicial custody, whereat, he stands extantly lodged, for, his allegedly committing offences, constituted under Sections 20 and 29 of the ND&PS Act, registered with Police Station, Parwanoo.

(2.) Upon the afore FIR, a verdict, of, conviction stands pronounced, upon, co-accused Vijender Singh and Amit Singh. The bail-applicant, along with the afore co-accused, stood arrayed, as, a co-accused. However, during the course of trial, he remained under absconcion, and, upon his surrender before the learned trial Court, he is facing charge for his allegedly committing, the, apt offence. The arraying of the bail-applicant, along with the afore convicts, is, submitted by the learned Additional Advocate General, to be in pursuance, of, the afore convicts, rather during the course of their respective custodial interrogation, hence rendering a statement qua the seized contraband, standing purchased, from, the bail-applicant. The afore confession rendered, by the afore convicts, would, gather the firmest formidability, upon, at the stage contemporaneous, to, the seizure memo(s) standing drawn, thereat, too, the afore convicts, also, rendering an alike statement, b) the afore convicts ensuring, the, identification of the place, of, the abode of the bail-applicant, wherefrom they purchased, the, relevant item of contraband, and, with explicit clear enunciation(s) rather occurring therein qua seized contraband standing purchased therefrom, c) in proceedings drawn under Sec. 313 Cr. P.C., against the afore convicts, both making clear echoing(s), that, the seized contraband, stood purchased, by them from the bail-applicant. However, a closest, and, studied perusal of the afore memos, negates the espousal of the learned Additional Advocate General, that, the afore co-convicts, had, prima-facie, made the purchase of the relevant piece of contraband, from, the bail-applicant. Further, the effect thereof, is, that the custodial confession, made, by the afore convicts, wherein they name the bail-applicant, to be the person, from whom, the purchase was made, standing prima-facie belied, and, the afore rendered confessional statement, are, primafacie, also to be construable to be a sheer invention, and concoction, on the part of the Investigating officer concerned.

(3.) The Honourable Apex Court in case titled as "State of Maharashtra versus Kamal Ahmed Mohammad Vakil Ansari and others" in criminal appeal No. 445 of 2013, has in paragraph No. 26, paragraph whereof stands extracted hereinafter: