It is clear from the discussion that section 27 of the Evidence Act does not provide for the drafting of information that may have been provided by a respondent. Therefore, the information can be oral and also proven against the defendant giving the information. But if the defendant`s oral information is not rejected by the investigator, or if the investigator does not provide exactly what the defendant had said before him, section 27 would not apply because, strictly speaking, there would be no evidence of a disclosure statement. In doing so, the judge rejected Ankur Sangwan`s request for early bail and said, “. The facts and circumstances of the present case show that the testimony of the deceased girl could not be recorded under § 164 Cr.P.C and that not even a medical examination could be carried out in relation to the present allegations because she was in contact with Covid-19. In addition, the allegation regarding the video of the rape incident, on the basis of which the other co-accused Anil, who was allegedly blackmailed, was also of great importance. The assertion of the informed prosecutor that the gravity of the crime was immense and that it is possible that the applicant could manipulate or abuse evidence, including the above-mentioned video, or even flee justice, therefore carries some weight. The court concluded that the complainant was not named in the FIR and his involvement was claimed on the basis of the co-accused`s testimony, the admissibility of which was a contentious issue. Therefore, in this context, the applicant`s application for bail was granted, but the Public Prosecutor`s Office was given the opportunity to file an application for the annulment of the bail if the applicant does not participate in the investigation or if the conditions set out in Article 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure .C. are not met. The Honourable Supreme Court of Punjab and Haryana, which held a hearing on a bail issue, found that relying on the co-accused`s disclosure statement as the only evidence against the applicant raises a dubious statement regarding the admissibility of that evidence. It considers that there is no evidence in the file which requires the continuation of the criminal proceedings against the applicant unless there is even a recorded confession by the co-accused, with the exception of the disclosure statement upheld by the Supreme Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh by the scholarly bank headed by Judge Rajnesh Oswal in the case of Sandeep Kumar v. State J & K (Bail App No.
253/2021 [CrlM No. 1515/2021]) “In the present case, one of the allegations against the co-accused, namely Anil Malik, was that he had made a video of the rape for extortion of the deceased girl, and another fact was revealed that the applicant had spent the night in a tent with the deceased girl with two other co-accused, namely Anil Malik and Anup Singh Chanaut. The co-accused also stated. that the applicant outraged the modesty of the deceased girl and assisted the other accused in sexually assaulting and raping her. When considering early bail prayer, a balance must be struck between a person`s freedom and various other factors, including the seriousness of the crime, the impact on the general public, and the particular facts and circumstances of each individual case that must be taken into account. A learned lawyer for the applicant maintained that he had been falsely accused. Apart from the alleged revelations and confessions of the accused, there is no evidence linking the applicant to the object of the crime. The brief facts of the case are that the applicant is acting through the present application under Article 561-A Cr.P.C.
(now 482 Cr.P.C.) requested the annulment of the criminal proceedings entitled “State against Ghulam Mohammed & Anr” pending against him before the Principal Judge of the Court of Scholarly Sessions, Kishtwar (hereinafter referred to as the Court of First Instance), resulting from the FIR with No. 13 of 2013 for the commission of offences under Articles 295, 457, 380, CPR. The applicant requested the annulment of the criminal proceedings mainly on the grounds that the evidence cited by the prosecution is legally inadmissible because, according to the indictment, the accused No. 1 in the case, namely Ghulam Mohd, made a confession/admission of guilt before them, in which he stated that the applicant was also an accomplice to this act and to the law, no confession is admissible if the same is done not only to the police officer, but also in the presence of the police officer. Moreover, the proceedings pending against him do not reveal the commission of an offence by the applicant, since the proceedings are nothing more than an abuse of judicial process. For the purposes of section 27 of the Evidence Act, an admissible part of the confessional testimony must be found in relation to a fact that was the immediate cause of the discovery, only that it would be part of the legal evidence and not of the rest. If something new is discovered in a statement or seized by the accused that was not known to the police before the accused`s disclosure statement was recorded, this is allowed in the taking of evidence. The Supreme Court of Punjab and Haryana recently rejected the request for early bail of Ankur Sangwan – accused of sexually assaulting a West Bengal woman at the Tikri border in Haryana in April – registered after a revelation by a co-accused. The applicant`s expert lawyer further maintained that there was no recovery of incriminating evidence or documents as a result of the statements of disclosure or alleged confessions, since the statements of disclosure as such were inadmissible as evidence. “While the disclosure statement itself is weak evidence, at the same time, when other factors play a role, no exemption can be granted solely because the defendant`s name emerged based on a disclosure statement from the co-accused,” Judge Jasgurpreet Singh Puri said. according to the order copy provided on Monday.. .