RAKESH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant bail application has been filed by the petitioner Rakesh S/o Shri Kishanlal under Sec. 439 Cr.P.C against the order impugned dated passed by learned court below in connection with FIR No.029/2021 registered at Police Station Hathunia, District Pratapgarh for the offences under Ss. 8/15 and 29 of NDPS Act.

(2.) The first bail application came to be dismissed by this Court vide order dtd. 20/12/2022 with liberty to the petitioner to file afresh after statement of the I.O. is recorded in trial. Now, the I.O. has been examined, hence the present second bail application is filed.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a false case has been foisted against the petitioner. He has nothing to do with the alleged offences and no useful purpose would be served by keeping him behind the bars. He submits that there is no legally admissible evidence against the accused-petitioner to connect him with the alleged recovery of poppy husk affected from the principal accused. The alleged disclosure statement was said to have been made by the principal accused Tulsiram, who stated to the police regarding involvement of the petitioner, but except his confession, nothing has been recovered or discovered, therefore, the contents of the said information cannot be taken into evidence as the same is beyond the arena of Sec. 27 of the Evidence Act. He have been made accused on the strength of confessional statement made by the co-accused during police custody which is otherwise not admissible in evidence by virtue of Ss. 25 and 26 of Indian Evidence Act. The said disclosure statement does not come within the ambit of Sec. 27 of Indian Evidence Act. It is the admitted case of the prosecution that neither the petitioner was found present at the crime scene nor any incriminating material or contraband was recovered from his possession.