Bhikham Singh vs State Of Rajasthan

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Public Prosecutor and also perused the material on record.

The petitioner has been arrested in FIR No.435/2018 of Police Station Sangaria, District Hanumangarh for the offences punishable under Sections

8/21, 8/22 and 8/29 of NDPS Act and Section 18-C/27(B)/2 of Drugs and Cosmetics Act. He has preferred this third bail application under Section

439 Cr.P.C.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that as per the prosecution story the police have apprehended the accused Manoj Lakhara on

19.08.2019 when he was passing through the road in town Sangaria and during the search, the police found 50 vials of syrup and 500 tablets containing

narcotic substances. It is submitted that as per the prosecution story, the police had seized the mobile phone of accused Manoj Lakhara, in which they

found some Whats App conversations with another person and as per those conversations, accused Manoj Lakhara asked the petitioner to supply him

the vials of syrup and strips of tablets and as per the order, the petitioner supplied him the said items.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the whole story of the prosecution is concocted and the petitioner never made any conversation on

Whats App or whatsoever with the accused Manoj Lakhara. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that though the police have

claimed that they had seized the mobile phone from the petitioner but no such mobile phone was ever seized by the police at any point of time. It is

submitted that there is no evidence available on record that the mobile phone allegedly seized from the petitioner contains the SIM issued in his name.

It is further submitted that now the statements of Investigating Officer PW-1 Mangu Ram have been recorded before the trial court, however, in

those statements the said witness claimed that he placed the photo copies of the Whats App conversations on record but the said conversations were

not exhibited. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that from the statements of Investigating Officer PW-1, it is clear that he did not make

any effort to confirm that the mobile phone or the SIM card allegedly seized from the petitioner belongs to him. It is further submitted that admittedly

no recovery of any narcotic substance was been affected at the instance of the petitioner. It is, therefore, prayed that the petitioner has falsely been

implicated in this case and he is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail application and submitted that the police have procured the information from the petitioner under

Section 67 of the NDPS Act, wherein he has admitted that he supplied vials of syrup and strips of tablets containing narcotic substance to the accused

Manoj Lakhara. It is submitted that the information supplied by the petitioner under Section 67 of the NDPS Act is admissible in evidence, therefore,

the petitioner is not entitled to be enlarged on bail.

After perusing the record and charge-sheet, it is noticed that the police have not filed any document ascertaining the fact that the mobile phone

allegedly seized from the custody of the petitioner belongs to him and no details or verification was collected from the company, that the SIM card

used in the said mobile phone was issued in the name of petitioner.

The contention of the learned Public Prosecutor to the effect that the information supplied by the petitioner under Section 67 of the NDPS Act is

admissible in evidence, does not impress this Court because the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the judgment dated 04.09.2019 rendered in Mohammed

Fasrin Vs. State Represented by the Intelligence Officer reported in (2019) 8 Supreme Court Cases 81 1has held that the information supplied by an

accused under Section 67 of the NDPS Act or a confession recorded when the accused is in custody, even though admissible in evidence but is a very

weak piece of evidence and there must be some corroborative evidence in support of the said information or confession. In the present case the

prosecution have failed to produce any corroborative evidence of the alleged confession of petitioner.

Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I deem it just and

proper to grant bail to the accused petitioner under Section 439 Cr.P.C.

Accordingly, this third bail application filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is directed that petitioner - Bhikham Singh S/o Sohan Singh

shall be released on bail in connection with FIR No.435/2018 of Police Station Sangaria, District Hanumangarh provided he executes a personal bond

in a sum of Rs.50,000/-with two sound and solvent sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of learned trial court for his appearance before that

court on each and every date of hearing and whenever called upon to do so till the completion of the trial.