ARUN MADAN, J. - (1.) I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor and also perused the documents available on the record.
(2.) THE gravity of the charge against the petitioner is that on an information being made available to the Investigating Police, raiding party was organized to con­duct the search in the hotel premises namely: Blue Moon Hotel, Pushkar, Ajmer where three Nepali youths namely; Avinash, Govind and Kamal were staying who were allegedly in possession of various quantities of Charas ranging from 400 gms. to 600 gms. along with Rs. 10,000/- each on every one of them. They were arrested and booked for offence under Section 8/21 of the NDPS Act, 1985 for short "the Act" pursuant to FIR No. 9/99 registered with P.S. Pushkar, Distt. Ajmer on the basis of which, the investiga­tion commonced. The entire seizure operation against three abovenamed ac­cused was carried out from 10.00 a.m. to 11.6o a.m. The accused were interrogated and their statements under Section 161, Cr. PC. were recorded. Recovery of Charas was also effected from the accused-appel­lant Bholaram, who was booked for of­fence under Sections 8/21 of the Act. On an application moved before the learned trial Court for release of the petitioner on bail, the trial Court declined the petitioner's request for releasing him on bail vide its order dated 6-3-1999. Thereafter, the petitioner had preferred the present bail application before this Court which after hearing learned counsel for the parties is being finally disposed of today. Mr. Alok Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently con­tended at the bar that recovery of 180 gms. of Charas which was effected from the petitioner cannot be attributed to him without compliance to Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 for short "the Act of 1872" which stipulates, as under:- "27. How much of information received from accused may be proved.-Provided that, when any fact is deposed to as discovered in consequence of information received from a person accused of any offence, in the custody of a police officer, so much of such information, whether it amounts to a confession or not, as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered, may be proved."
(3.) THE second contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that any statement made by an accused to the investigating police during the course of interrogation is inadmissible in evidence without corroboration by any independent witness.;