PAPPU Vs. STATE

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. 55/2018 of Police Station Matora, District Jodhpur for the offences punishable under Ss. 8/15, 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 after rejection of the first bail application of the petitioner, statement of Investigating Officer PW-2- Omprakash were recorded before the trial court on 14/3/2019. It is argued that the Investigating Officer in his statement has specifically stated that co-accused Mangi Lal did not give any information under Sec. 27 of the Indian Evidence Act to the effect that 178 kgs of poppy straw recovered by the police in the matter was procured from petitioner. He has also specifically admitted that none of the independent persons had informed him that the seized narcotic contraband was supplied by the petitioner to co-accused Mangi Lal. It is argued that from the charge-sheet, it can only be gathered that the co-accused Mangi Lal did not give any information to the Investigating Officer under Sec. 27 of Indian Evidence Act regarding involvement of the petitioner in commission of crime, however later on, in his interrogation note, he disclosed that co-accused Naina Ram asked him that the petitioner would supply the narcotic contraband to him at his house and on receiving the same, you should inform me. It is further submitted that whatever information given by co-accused Mangi Lal during his police custody cannot be termed as admissible evidence and except the said information given by the co-accused in his interrogation note during his police custody, no evidence is available on record to connect the petitioner with the commission of crime.