SURENDRA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Public Prosecutor and also perused the material on record.

(2.) The petitioner has been arrested in FIR No. 136/2019 of Police Station Sangaria, District Hanumangarh for the offences punishable under Sections 8/15 and 29 of NDPS Act. He has preferred this bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that as per the prosecution story, the police have arrested co-accused Rajesh Kumar @ Raju while he was in possession of 98 kgs. of poppy straw. After his arrest, co-accused Rajesh Kumar @ Raju gave an information that he has procured the said narcotic contraband from the petitioner. It is submitted that from the perusal of the charge-sheet, it is clear that except the information given by co-accused Rajesh Kumar while in police custody, no other evidence is available on record against the petitioner to connect him with the commission of crime. It is argued that it is well settled that an information given by an accused person while in police custody is not admissible in evidence. Learned counsel for the petitioner has invited my attention towards the statements of Investigating Officer (PW-2 Sumer Singh) and it is urged that even the Investigating Officer in his court statements has also specifically admitted that except the information given by co-accused Rajesh Kumar while in police custody, no other evidence is available on record against the petitioner to connect with commission of crime.