Disclosure Statement of Co-Accused Alone Cannot Justify Continued Incarceration in Commercial Quantity NDPS Case: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Bail

“Rigour of Section 37 NDPS Act Pale Into Oblivion in Cases of Long Incarceration and Delayed Trial” – Punjab and Haryana High Court delivered a significant ruling reiterating that a disclosure statement of a co-accused, without corroborative evidence, cannot be the sole foundation for prolonged incarceration in an NDPS case involving commercial quantity. Deciding a second petition under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, Justice Sumeet Goel granted regular bail to the petitioner, despite the embargo under Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

The Court held that while Section 37 imposes stringent twin conditions for grant of bail in commercial quantity cases, its rigour may “pale into oblivion” in light of long incarceration and delay in trial, particularly when the accused is implicated solely on the basis of a co-accused’s disclosure statement and no recovery is effected from him.

25.265 Kg Ganja Recovered From Co-Accused; Petitioner Named Only in Disclosure

The case arose out of FIR No. 216 dated 08.09.2024 registered at Police Station Bass, Police District Hansi, District Hisar, under Sections 20(b)(ii)(C), 20(C), 61 and 85 of the NDPS Act. A commercial quantity of 25.265 kilograms of ganja was allegedly recovered from co-accused Sunehari @ Suneri.

The petitioner, Bintu, was not present at the spot and was subsequently nominated solely on the basis of the disclosure statement of the co-accused under Section 67 of the NDPS Act. He was arrested on 31.05.2025, and challan was presented on 19.09.2025. Eighteen prosecution witnesses were cited, yet none had been examined as charges were yet to be framed.

Significantly, the co-accused from whom the contraband was recovered had already been granted regular bail by a Coordinate Bench on 21.01.2026.

The present petition was the second attempt at securing bail, the earlier one having been dismissed as withdrawn on 16.01.2026.

Section 37 NDPS Act, Disclosure Statement Under Section 67, and Article 21

The core legal questions before the Court were whether the twin conditions under Section 37(1)(b) of the NDPS Act stood satisfied, whether a disclosure statement of a co-accused could justify continued incarceration, and whether long incarceration and delay in trial constituted a substantial change in circumstances warranting consideration of a successive bail petition.

The Court noted that the petitioner was implicated “solely on the basis of disclosure statement of co-accused” and that “there is no other material available to connect the petitioner with the contraband except for the said disclosure statement.”

Relying upon Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 2020 SC 5592, and subsequent precedents including Smt. Najmunisha v. State of Gujarat and Vijay Singh v. State of Haryana, the Court reiterated the settled principle that a confession under Section 67 of the NDPS Act is “inherently a very weak piece of evidence” and “cannot form the sole basis for the conviction of an individual.”

Justice Goel quoted from the earlier decision in Anshul Sardana v. State of Punjab to observe that while the final admissibility of such disclosure is to be tested at trial, “a prima facie examination of these factors is essential to ensure that the process of law is not misused, abused or misdirected.”

Section 37: Twin Conditions Are Cumulative, But Not Absolute

The Court undertook a detailed analysis of Section 37 and referred to its earlier ruling in Jaswinder Singh alias Kala v. State of Punjab. It reiterated that the twin conditions under Section 37(1)(b) are cumulative and in addition to the parameters under Cr.P.C./BNSS. However, the Court emphasized that:

“the rigour(s) of Section 37 of NDPS Act pale into oblivion when bail is sought for on account of long incarceration in view of Article 21 of the Constitution of India i.e. where the bail-applicant has suffered long under-trial custody, the trial is procrastinating and folly thereof is not attributable to such bail-applicant.”

The Court clarified that satisfaction under Section 37 requires only a prima facie assessment and not a detailed appreciation of evidence akin to a final trial. Given that no recovery was effected from the petitioner, he was not present at the spot, and no corroborative material existed apart from the disclosure statement, the Court found that continued detention was not justified.

“In this view of the matter, the rigor imposed under Section 37 of the NDPS Act stands diluted,” the Court observed.

Successive Bail Petition: Extended Incarceration Is a Substantial Change

Addressing the maintainability of the second bail petition, the Court relied upon Rafiq Khan v. State of Haryana to hold that a successive bail petition is maintainable provided there is a substantial change in circumstances.

The Court noted that the petitioner had already undergone incarceration for 8 months and 23 days and that trial had not commenced. It held that extended incarceration and slow pace of trial constitute a relevant and substantial change in circumstances warranting fresh consideration.

The Court further recorded cogent reasons for granting bail, as mandated for successive petitions.

Criminal Antecedents Not an Automatic Bar

The State had pointed out that the petitioner was involved in two other FIRs. However, the Court categorically held that mere involvement in other cases “cannot be a ground sufficient by itself, to decline the concession of regular bail” when a case is otherwise made out in the FIR in question.

Relying upon Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi v. State of U.P. and other precedents, the Court reaffirmed that bail must be considered on the facts of the present case and not on generalised assumptions about criminal propensity.

Bail Granted With Stringent Conditions

Allowing the petition, the Court directed release of the petitioner on regular bail subject to furnishing bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the concerned CJM/Duty Magistrate.

In addition, stringent conditions were imposed including non-misuse of liberty, non-tampering of evidence, appearance on all dates of hearing, surrender of passport, disclosure of mobile number, and submission of a monthly affidavit affirming non-involvement in any offence. The Court further granted liberty to the State to seek cancellation of bail in case of breach of conditions.

The Court clarified that “Nothing said hereinabove shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.”

In sum, the decision reinforces the evolving judicial approach that even in commercial quantity NDPS cases, the embargo under Section 37 is not insurmountable, particularly where implication rests solely on a weak disclosure statement and the undertrial faces prolonged incarceration without progress of trial. The judgment strikes a careful balance between the statutory rigour of the NDPS Act and the constitutional mandate of personal liberty under Article 21.

Date of Decision: 25 February 2026