MANISH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ' Vijay Bishnoi, J. 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.26/2019 of Police Station Raisingh Nagar, District Sri Ganganagar for the offences punishable under Ss. 8/15, 21 and 29 NDPS Act. He has preferred this third bail application under Sec. 439 Cr.P.C.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that as per the prosecution story, huge quantity of tablets and capsules containing narcotic substance have been recovered at the instance of co-accused Bharat Bhushan. It is further submitted that the allegation of the prosecution is to the effect that co-accused Bharat Bhushan, in his confessional statements recorded under Sec. 67 of the NDPS Act, has stated that he procured the said narcotic substance from Sanjay Kumar and petitioner-Manish Kumar. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that on the basis of the said confessional statements, the petitioner was arrested by the police. It is further argued that now it is well settled that the confessional statements recorded under Sec. 67 of the NDPS Act are not admissible in evidence. It is also argued that from the statements of Investigating Officer (PW-11), it is clear that no narcotic substance has been recovered at the instance of the petitioner. It is further submitted that the Investigating Officer has admitted in his statements that the mobile phone, recovered at the instance of the petitioner, did not contain any SIM Card, which is in the name of petitioner and the same is in the name of one Sanwar Lal Nayak S/o Jeevan R/o Asind District Bhilwara. The Investigating Officer in his statements specifically admitted that he did not interrogate Sawar Lal Nayak and there is no call details available on record which suggest that from that mobile phone, the petitioner has contacted co-accused Bharat Bhushan. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the above facts and circumstances of the case, it is clear that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case.