NDPS | Confession Before Police Cannot Be Sole Basis For Prosecution: Telangana High Court Grants Bail

Telangana High Court, in a significant ruling, granted bail to an individual accused of being an MDMA supplier, observing that the material part of the investigation was complete and the accused had undergone substantial incarceration.

A single-judge bench of Justice K. Sujana held that the rigours of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act must be balanced against the progress of the investigation and the nature of the evidence collected. The Court noted that the petitioner had been in custody since February 2024 and fifteen witnesses had already been examined.

The case originated on January 5, 2026, when Bachupally police apprehended Accused No. 1 near Mallampet Road with 1.24 grams of MDMA. During custodial interrogation, Accused No. 1 allegedly named the petitioner, Yaswanth K. Nasa (Accused No. 5), as the person who supplied the contraband. Based on this disclosure, the petitioner was arrested from his residence in Bengaluru and brought to Hyderabad, where he was remanded to judicial custody for offences under Sections 8(c) read with 22(b), 22(c), and 29 of the NDPS Act.

The primary question before the Court was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail under the NDPS Act when no contraband was recovered from his direct possession. The Court was also called upon to determine if a confessional statement recorded after an arrest made in another state could serve as a voluntary statement and form the sole basis for continued incarceration.

Inadmissibility Of Confessions Made To Police Officers

The Court took note of the petitioner's contention that his implication was based solely on the confessional statements of the co-accused and his own custodial confession. Relying on the landmark Supreme Court decision in Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu, the petitioner argued that such statements are inadmissible in evidence. The Court observed that the confession was recorded only after the petitioner was apprehended in Bengaluru and brought to Hyderabad, casting doubt on it being a voluntary statement.

“A confession made before a police officer under the NDPS Act cannot be the sole basis for prosecution.”

Absence Of Direct Recovery And Nexus

The bench examined the prosecution's claim regarding the petitioner’s involvement in an organized drug trafficking network. It was noted that while the state alleged the petitioner was a supplier, no contraband or incriminating material was recovered from his possession at the time of his arrest. The Court weighed the submission that no direct nexus had been established between the petitioner and the MDMA seized from Accused No. 1, apart from the contested disclosures.

“There was no recovery of any contraband or incriminating material from the petitioner and no direct nexus has been established between him and the contraband seized.”

Balancing Section 37 Rigours With Incarceration Period

While the Additional Public Prosecutor argued that the gravity of the offence and the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act necessitated continued custody, the Court found that the investigation had reached a mature stage. The record indicated that the petitioner had been in jail since February 5, 2026. Justice Sujana observed that since the material part of the investigation was finished and L.Ws. 1 to 15 had been examined, further detention was not warranted.

“As seen from the record, the material part of the investigation has been completed and L.Ws.1 to 15 witnesses have been examined.”

Mandatory Compliance With Procedural Safeguards

The Court also considered the arguments regarding the lack of proper compliance with mandatory provisions under Sections 42, 50, and 67 of the NDPS Act. These sections provide essential safeguards regarding the recording of information, search of persons, and the power to call for information. By granting bail, the Court emphasized that procedural fairness and the period of incarceration are vital factors in criminal jurisprudence, even under special statutes like the NDPS Act.

Allowing the criminal petition, the Court ordered the petitioner’s release on bail upon the execution of a personal bond for Rs. 25,000 with two sureties of a like sum. The petitioner was directed to appear before the concerned Station House Officer every Monday for eight weeks or until the filing of the charge sheet. Furthermore, the Court mandated that the petitioner must abide by the conditions stipulated in Section 437(3) of the CrPC, which corresponds to Section 480(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).

Date of Decision: 01 July 2026