NDPS Act | Disclosure Statement Of Co-Accused Inherently Weak Evidence; Pendency Of Other FIRs Alone No Ground To Deny Bail: Punjab & Haryana High Court

"It is a well established principle of law that a confession made by a co-accused under Section 67 of the NDPS Act is inherently a very weak piece of evidence. Such statement(s), by themselves, cannot form the sole basis for the conviction of an individual and must be scrutinized with utmost caution in conjunction with other substantive evidence." Punjab and Haryana High Court, in a significant ruling dated September 23, 2026, held that an accused nominated solely on the basis of a co-accused's disclosure statement without any direct recovery is entitled to regular bail, reaffirming that confession under Section 67 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 is "inherently a very weak piece of evidence."

A single-judge bench of Justice Sumeet Goel observed that while evaluating a plea for regular bail, the factum of the accused's involvement in other criminal cases cannot, by itself, operate as a bar to the grant of bail if a case for relief is otherwise made out on the merits of the case.

The prosecution arose out of FIR No. 62 dated April 18, 2026, registered under Section 21 of the NDPS Act (with Section 29 added subsequently) at Police Station Badhni Kalan, District Moga, involving the alleged recovery of 800 grams of heroin from two co-accused persons. The petitioner, who was not arrested from the spot and from whom no contraband was recovered, was subsequently implicated solely on the disclosure statement of a co-accused and remained in custody since April 19, 2026. He approached the High Court seeking regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

The primary questions before the High Court were whether an accused implicated solely on the disclosure statement of a co-accused without any recovery of contraband is entitled to regular bail under Section 483 BNSS, and whether the pendency of other criminal antecedents is sufficient by itself to deny bail when the facts otherwise warrant the concession of regular bail.

Nomination Solely Based On Co-Accused Disclosure Raises Debatable Issues

Examining the factual matrix, the bench noted that the investigation was still pending and the final report under Section 173 CrPC / BNSS had not been filed. The Court observed that the petitioner was neither apprehended at the spot nor was any contraband recovered from his conscious possession, his implication being founded entirely upon the disclosure statement rendered by co-accused Mohinder Pal.

The bench stressed that the veracity, probative worth, and evidentiary weight to be attached to such a disclosure statement can only be evaluated during trial. Noting that a co-accused had already been granted anticipatory bail, the Court held that the contentions raised give rise to debatable questions which cannot be adjudicated at a preliminary stage without prejudicing the trial.

Section 67 NDPS Confession Cannot Form Sole Basis For Depriving Liberty

"Final Evidentiary Value Of Disclosure Statement Falls Within Domain Of Trial Court"

Relying on its earlier ruling in Anshul Sardana v. State of Punjab (2025: PHHC:004198), the High Court underscored that statements recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act carry minimal evidentiary value in light of the landmark Supreme Court precedents in Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu, Smt. Najmunisha v. State of Gujarat, State by (NCB) Bengaluru v. Pallulabid Ahmad Arimutta, and Vijay Singh v. State of Haryana.

The Court observed that while regular bail directly impacts the life and liberty of an individual, constitutional courts are obligated to strike a harmonious balance between personal liberty and effective administration of criminal justice. The bench reiterated that a prima facie judicial examination of the nature of the allegations, the nexus between the accused and the offence, and the specific role attributed is essential to prevent misuse of criminal process.

"Courts are obligated to strike a balance between safeguarding personal liberty and ensuring the effective administration of justice as also investigation."

Involvement In Other FIRs Not A Ground By Itself To Refuse Regular Bail

Addressing the State's vehement opposition premised on the petitioner's criminal antecedents and custody certificate showing involvement in other FIRs, Justice Goel categorically held that criminal history cannot be treated as an absolute disentitlement. The bench held that where a case for enlargement on bail is independently made out on an assessment of the facts of the case at hand, prior antecedents alone cannot justify continued incarceration.

To substantiate this position, the bench placed authoritative reliance on the Supreme Court's pronouncement in Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi v. State of U.P., the Calcutta High Court Division Bench judgment in Sridhar Das v. State, and Punjab and Haryana High Court rulings in Akhilesh Singh v. State of Haryana and Balraj v. State of Haryana. The Court concluded that further detention of the petitioner as an undertrial was completely unwarranted.

The High Court allowed the regular bail petition, directing the release of the petitioner on furnishing appropriate bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the concerned Chief Judicial Magistrate or Duty Magistrate, subject to stringent procedural conditions to ensure trial integrity. The Court directed the petitioner to not tamper with evidence, surrender his passport, furnish his mobile number to the investigating agency without altering it without prior judicial permission, and submit a monthly compliance affidavit on the first working day of every month before the trial court affirming that he has not engaged in any criminal activity post-release.

Date of Decision: September 23, 2026