MANISH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

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

(2.) The petitioner(s) has/have been arrested in FIR No. 185/2018 of Police Station Lalgarhjatan, Distt. Sri Ganganagar for the offence(s) punishable under Sec. (s) 8/22 and 29 of the NDPS Act. He/she/they has/have preferred this/these second bail application(s) under Sec. 439 Cr.P.C.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that after rejection of the first bail application preferred on behalf of the petitioner, charge-sheet has been filed and, thereafter, charges have already been framed. It is submitted that now statements of the I.O. namely Chandrajeet Singh (PW-2) have been recorded before the trial court. It is further submitted that the said I.O. has arrested the petitioner and investigated about the role of the petitioner in the commission of crime. It is submitted that the I.O., in his cross-examination, has specifically stated that except the information supplied by co-accused Gurpreet Singh, from whom, the narcotic contraband was recovered, no other independent evidence has been collected by him to connect the petitioner with the commission of crime. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the I.O., in his cross-examination, has also admitted that no call details between the petitioner and co-accused Gurpreet Singh are available on record of the time when Gurpreet Singh was apprehended with the narcotic contraband. The I.O. has also clearly admitted in his cross-examination that the mobile phones and sim cards of the petitioner and co-accused Gurpreet Singh have not been recovered by him. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that from the evidence of the I.O., it is clear that except the information supplied by co-accused Gurpreet Singh regarding involvement of the petitioner in the commission of crime, no other evidence has been collected by him against the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that it is well settled that the information supplied by co-accused in police custody is not admissible in evidence, therefore, it is clear that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case.