PRAKASH CHANDRA 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. 162/2018 of Police Station Gangrar, District Chittorgarh for the offences punishable under Ss. 8/15 and 29 of NDPS Act. He has preferred this third bail application under Sec. 439 Cr.P.C.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that as per the prosecution story, co-accused Udayram was apprehended with 140 kgs. poppy straw in his illegal possession. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that co-accused Udayram while in police custody gave an information that he procured the narcotic contraband poppy straw from the petitioner and on the basis of said information, police arrested the petitioner and filed charge- sheet against him for the offence punishable under Sec. 8/29 of NDPS Act and charges were framed against him for the same offence. It is submitted that except the information given by coaccused Udayram, while in police custody, no other evidence is available on record to connect the petitioner with commission of crime. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the statements of Investigating Officer Hanumant Singh have been recorded before the trial court as PW-4, wherein he has specifically admitted that no evidence was collected by him to establish the link between the petitioner and co-accused Udayram, whereas he has specifically stated that during the course of investigation, he had failed to collect any evidence of this effect that the petitioner had ever met co-accused Udayram or supplied him narcotic contraband, which was recovered from the possession of co-accused Udayram. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Investigating Officer Hanumant Singh, in his statements, has also admitted that except the information given by co-accused Udayram, while in police custody, no other evidence is available against the petitioner. It is argued that the information given by co-accused Udayram while in police custody is not admissible as evidence in law and except this no other evidence is available against the petitioner. Thus, it is clear that there is hardly any evidence against the petitioner to connect him with the commission of crime.