Nothing New Was Disclosed, Recovered Or Discovered Pursuant To Confession U/s. 27 Evidence Act: Rajasthan HC Grants Bail To Accused Arrayed In NDPS Case Based On Statement Of Co-Accused
The Rajasthan High Court has held that information supplied under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act must be corroborated or supported to verify the confession made by an accused to a Police Officer while in lockup.
The Court noted that the accused seeking bail had been made an accused in the case based on the disclosure statement of a co-accused in police custody. Therefore the Bench stated that the said disclosure statement was “just illusory knowledge” and did not become a fact proved to rope in the accused for the commission of an offence under Section 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act).
A Single Bench of Justice Farjand Ali observed, “If it is an information under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, something is required to be recovered or discovered in pursuance of the information supplied under Section 27 of the Evidence Act which distinctly relates to the commission of the crime. It is the admitted case of prosecution that in pursuance of the information furnished under Section 27 of the Evidence Act regarding the culpability of the petitioners, nothing new was disclosed, recovered or discovered. This court is of the view that at least there must be some corroborations or support to verify the confession made by the accused to the Police Officer while in lockup.”
Advocate Rahul Khandelwal appeared for the petitioner, while PP S.S. Mehla represented the respondents.
The accused had been implicated in the case on the basis of a confessional statement of the principal-accused.
The Prosecution opposes the bail application submitting that the alleged recovered contraband from the accused was way above the demarcated commercial quantity, and therefore, the impediment contained under Section 37 of the NDPS Act would attract.
The Court had already rejected the first and the second bail applications filed by the accused.
On the other hand, the accused argued that he was made an accused on the strength of a confessional statement allegedly made by the principal-accused during police custody which would otherwise not be admissible in evidence under Sections 25 and 26 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (the Act).
He further submitted that the said disclosure statement did not come within the ambit of Section 27 of the Act.
The Court clarified that when it comes to the information under Section 27 of the Act, something must be “recovered or discovered” in pursuance of the information supplied relating to the commission of the crime.
“It can be manifested from a simple reading of Section 27 of the Evidence Act…that only information in the form of confession received from disclosure made by an accused cannot be taken as reliable piece of evidence in isolation until there is a discovery or a recovery or another fact to corroborate the said information and prove its veracity,” the Court remarked.
Consequently, the Court observed, “Section 27 of Evidence Act is an exception to Sections 24, 25 and 26 of Evidence Act, however, the exception limits its admissibility only upto what is envisaged in the statute itself and not beyond that.”
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the third bail application under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C.
Cause Title: Dheerap Singh v. State Of Rajasthan (Neutral Citation: 2024:RJ-JP:28385)
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocates Rahul Khandelwal and Ali Mohd. Khan
Respondent: PP S.S. Mehla
