Confessional statements made by accused or Disclosure statements given by co-accused do not have much evidentiary value: P&H HC

Read Order: Deepak @ Neeraj v. State of Haryana 

Tulip Kanth

Chandigarh, November 29, 2021: The Punjab and Haryana High Court has observed that the only material emerging against the accused was his own Confessional Statement, or the Disclosure Statements given by co-accused which do not have much evidentiary value and are per se inadmissible.

The petition had been filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking Regular Bail on behalf of the petitioner pertaining to the FIR registered under sections 148, 149, 302, 452, 506 of the Indian Penal Code, and section 25-54-59 of the Arms Act, at Police Station Badli, District Jhajjar.

In the FIR lodged by one Akshay Lochab, it was stated that in the year 2019, his brother Ajay had been killed by Shekhar son of Joker, Ravi son of Ranbir, Bholu and 2-3 other young boys by firing pistol shots on him.

The petitioner was subsequently arrested during the investigation and had remained in custody for 2 and a half years now.In the meantime, investigation was completed and the charge sheet was submitted against the petitioner quite some time ago, after which the charges were framed.

The main ground on which bail was being sought, by the petitioner,  was that there was no tangible material available against him in the case, and that he had already undergone imprisonment for an inordinately long time.

The Bench of Justice Sudip Ahluwalia mentioned that admittedly, the petitioner was not named in the FIR. 

The only material emerging against him happened to be either his own Confessional Statement, or the Disclosure Statements given by co-accused Sandeep @ Mistri. Such Statements do not have much evidentiary value and are per se inadmissible, stated the Court.

According to the Bench,the mere fact that the Petitioner was reported to be involved in other cases, involving serious offences, in itself, was not a sufficient ground to detain him in the present case for an indefinite period at this stage since as many as 39 more witnesses were yet to be examined from the prosecution side, and from the material gathered during investigation none of them appeared to have any direct knowledge regarding involvement of the petitioner in the occurrence, in question.

In these circumstances, considering the long detention undergone by the petitioner, at this stage, the Bench ordered him to be released on bail to the satisfaction of the Trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned.