MUKESH KUMAR 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. 42/2017 of Police Station Bakhasar, District Barmer for the offence punishable under Sec. 8/15 of NDPS Act. He has preferred this second bail application under Sec. 439 Cr.P.C.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that as per the prosecution story, 93 kgs. of poppy straw was recovered from Innova Crysta on 1/10/2017. It is alleged that when the police intercepted the vehicle, in which the narcotic contraband was being transported, the driver of the said vehicle ran away from the scene of crime, however, later on, police identified him as Peera Ram @ Pradeep S/o Pema Ram and arrested him, who gave information to the police that the narcotic contraband recovered by the police was supplied to him by the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the police have arrested the petitioner simply on the basis of information given by co-accused Peera Ram @ Pradeep and the charge-sheet has also been filed against him solely on the basis of said information. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that except this evidence no other evidence is available on record against the petitioner and the same can be verified from the statements of Investigating Officer - Suresh Saran (PW-1), who in his court statements recorded on 29/1/2019, has also specifically stated that except the information supplied by co-accused Peera Ram @ Pradeep no other evidence is available against the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the information supplied by co-accused Peera Ram @ Pradeep in police custody, is not admissible in evidence, hence, it is clear that the prosecution cannot be able to prove the guilt of petitioner in the trial pending against him.