SRI RAM @ SANJAY Vs. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the material available on the record.

(2.) These two bail applications have been preferred on behalf of the petitioners Sri Ram @ Sanjay and Bhajjan Lal seeking bail in connection with F.I.R. No. 60/2015, registered at Police Station Mandar, District Sirohi for the offences under Sections 420, 466, 468, 471, 120-B, 379/411 of the IPC and Section 8/18 of the NDPS Act.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the recovery of contraband poppy straw weighing 130 Kgs. was effected on 11.06.2015 from an abandoned Scorpio vehicle. The FIR was lodged by one Pappu Singh @ Khangar Singh that Scorpio vehcile No. RJ-27-UA-4665 collided with his Tata Safari and then the occupants of the Scorpio vehicle fired towards him. Pappu Singh did not name the accused. During course of investigation, the investigating officer claims to have collected details of few mobile sim numbers in order to trace out the accused. However, it is undisputed that the mobile sims could not be linked with the present petitioners as they were procured under false identity. The petitioner Sri Ram @ Sanjay was in custody in connection with cases arising out of FIR Nos.71/2012 and 79/2015 registered at the Police Station Reodar. The investigating officer took custody of the petitioner Sri Ram from those cases and thereafter, the accused allegedly confessed that he had committed the crime. However, it is not disputed that other than the confession of the accused, the investigating officer has not been able to collect any concrete evidence so as to link the present petitioner Sri Ram @ Sanjay with the alleged offence. So far as the petitioner Bhajjan Lal is concerned, the entire material collected by the investigating officer so as to link him for the alleged offence under Section 8/28 of the NDPS Act is also in form of confessions of both the accused recorded by the investigating officer himself. It cannot be gainsaid that confession of an accused recorded by a police officer during course of investigation, would be hit by Section 25 of the Evidence Act. Be that as it may, the issue regarding admissibility of such confessional statement would have to be examined by the trial court at the appropriate stage.