'Either IOs Deliberately Leaving Lacuna Or Don't Know Evidence Law': MP High Court Grants Bail To Man Arrested On Confession Of Co-Accused

Hearing the bail application moved by the Applicant under Section 439 CrPC, Justice G.S. Ahluwalia noted-

In number of cases, it is being observed that the police is filing charge-sheet against the co-accused persons merely on the basis of confessional statement made by the co-accused. They do not try to collect any substantive evidence against the accused persons. It appears that either the Investigating Officer is deliberately leaving lacuna in the investigation or he does not know the law of evidence.

The Court further noted the police department should consider upgrading their officers about the law.

Section 25 of the Evidence Act provides that no confession made to a police officer, shall be proved as against a person accused of any offence.

The case of the Prosecution was that the Applicant/accused was arrested for offence punishable under Section 34(2) M.P. Excise Act. The police had received a tip off from an informant and accordingly, a trap was laid and a car was intercepted. Although, the car was surrounded by the police party, one person succeeded in escaping and the co-accused was arrested along with liquor. The co-accused had disclosed his name as well as the name of the identity of the person who had run away i.e., the Applicant.

The Applicant submitted that except for the information given by the co-accused about his identity, there was no other admissible evidence against him to implicate him in the offence. He further argued that the police had not conducted the Test Identification Parade and that the charge-sheet was also filed.

Whilst the State opposed the application, it could not point out to the Court as to how the confessional statement made by the co-accused was pursuant to the provisions under Section 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act. It was also conceded that the Applicant had no criminal history.

Considering the facts of the case and documents on record, the Court observed that the case of the Applicant was fit for grant of bail-

In view of the fact that there is no substantive and admissible evidence against the applicant and he has been implicated only on the basis of the confessional statement made by the co-accused, which is not admissible in the light of Sections 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act and no TIP of the applicant has been conducted and the police has filed the charge-sheet, and without commenting on the merits of the case, the application is allowed.

With the aforesaid observations, the Applicant was granted bail and accordingly, the application was allowed.

Case Title: B.P.@ AMRAT SINGH GURJAR VS. STATE OF M.P.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 113

Click Here To Read/Download Order