MADANLAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(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. 70/2018 of Police Station Ghantali for the offences punishable under Sec. 8/29 of NDPS Act. He has preferred this bail application under Sec. 439 Cr.P.C.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that allegation against the petitioner is to the effect that he had supplied 60 kgs. of poppy husk to co-accused Raju. It is submitted that initially the petitioner was not named anywhere in the FIR, seizure memo and in the statements of witnesses. It is submitted that after his arrest, co-accused Radhey Shyam gave an information (Exhibit-P/3) under Sec. 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, in which, he has disclosed the name of some other persons and place from where he had allegedly procured narcotic contraband. However, when the police took Radhey Shyam to said place, he refused to divulge anything and then the police brought him back. Later on, another information was obtained from co accused Radhey Shyam, in which, he named the petitioner.