Evidence Act, 1872
Section 27—Relevance of section—Disclosure statement made under Section 67 of the NDPS Act by the applicant can be held against him only if it falls within the exception of Section 27 of the Evidence Act—In order to attract Section 27 of the Act, it is necessary that information given by applicant lead to discovery of some new fact which was not within the knowledge of police and that knowledge was first time derived from the disclosure made by the applicant—Information must be in relation to a material object—Discovery of some fact must relate to commission of some offence.
[Para 21.1]
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973
Section 439—Bail—NDPS case—FIR registered under Section 8(c)/29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act—Case of prosecution based solely on disclosure statement of co-accused which is per se not admissible without there being any corroboration—No new fact has been disclosed by applicant regarding alleged main supplier of contraband—Such fact was already within the knowledge of respondent—Disclosure made under Section 67 of the NDPS Act by the applicant cannot be read against the applicant—No narcotic substance of psychotropic substance recovered from applicant or from his premises—Fact that anticipatory bail moved by alleged main supplier has been rejected or that main supplier is absconding, cannot be a ground to deny bail to the applicant—No monetary transaction between applicant and other co-accused and main supplier—In the absence of any financial dealings, any recovery of narcotic substance or psychotropic substance from the applicant or from the premises of applicant and/or at the behest of applicant, the fact that the CAF/CDR details show calls between applicant and main supplier and applicant and co-accused, cannot be a ground to deny him the bail—It is for the prosecution to establish the guilt, abetment, conspiracy of applicant beyond a reasonable doubt which is not borne out from the CAF/CDR details—No material to link the applicant with recovery of commercial quantity from accused except the co-accused’s own statement—Rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act not attracted—Prosecution has not been able to establish any connection between the subject offence and the location/CDRs of the accused persons, where the applicant is alleged to be present at the time when the contraband was collected by co-accused—Merely because applicant had been having frequent calls with co-accused, would not be sufficient to hold that applicant is guilty of the subject offence—Applicant directed to be released on bail—Application allowed.
[Paras 21 to 23]