GIRRAJ Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that in the instant case, Ganja was recovered not from accused -petitioner but it was on the information given by one of the co -accused after his arrest. Learned counsel for the accused -petitioner submits that this statement is not admissible in law. He has submitted that in the above circumstances on the basis of he statement of co -accused, the petitioner cannot be involved. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the accused -petitioner has placed reliance on a decision rendered by this Court in case title Lachhu @ Laxmi v. Union of India reported in, 2005(1) CCC 185 (Rajasthan) :, 2004(3) RCC 1411.

(2.) THE learned PP has opposed the application. It has been submitted by the learned PP that the matter is pending for investigation yet, therefore, the accused -petitioner should not be given benefit of bail.

(3.) IT is an admitted position of facts that contra -baned material Ganja has not been recovered from the accused -petitioner and one of the co -accused after his arrest and after lapse of couple of days gave information that accused -petitioner is also involved in this case. In the above facts and circumstances of the case, I deem it proper to give benefit of bail to the accused -petitioner, for the reason that statement of co -accused is not permissible in evidence as has been held in case of Lachhu @ Laxmi Vs. Union of India. In view of the above the bail application moved by the accused -petitioner requires to be allowed.