MANOJ RAWAT Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

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

(2.) The petitioners have been arrested in FIR No. 86/2019 of Police Station Sadar District Sriganganagar for the offences punishable under Sections 8/22, 29 of the NDPS Act. They have preferred these bail applications under Section 439 Cr.P.C.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that as per the prosecution story, the police have apprehended two persons Tinku @ Arpit and Rahul while they were transporting cough syrups containing narcotic contraband in a truck. It is further submitted that during the course of investigation co-accused Tinku @ Arpit informed the police that he procured the said vials of cough syrup from one Monu Singh and when Monu Singh was arrested, he gave the information to the police that he procured the said vials of cough syrup from Manoj and Raju @ Rajkumar. It is submitted that except the information given by co-accused persons while in police custody, no other evidence is available on record to connect the petitioners with the commission of crime. Learned counsel for the petitioner has invited attention of this Court towards the statements of Investigating Officer PW-2 Hanuman Ram and argued that the Investigating Officer also, in his courts statements, has specifically admitted that except the information given by the co-accused while in police custody, no other evidence is available on record to connect the petitioners with commission of crime. It is also argued that it is well settled that any information given by co-accused while in police custody is not admissible in evidence.