Section 37 NDPS Rigours Pale Into Oblivion Against Article 21 During Long Custody; Disclosure Of Co-Accused Is Weak Evidence: Punjab & Haryana HC

"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." Punjab and Haryana High Court, in a significant ruling, has held that the statutory rigours for bail under Section 37 of the NDPS Act must yield to the fundamental right to life and liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution in cases of prolonged incarceration.

A bench of Justice Sumeet Goel observed that a disclosure statement made by a co-accused is an inherently weak piece of evidence and cannot be the sole basis for denying regular bail when no recovery has been effected from the petitioner.

The petitioner, Gurlal Singh, sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) in an FIR involving the recovery of 351 grams of heroin from a co-accused, Jora Singh. The petitioner was nominated as an accused solely based on a disclosure statement made by Jora Singh and had been in custody since January 5, 2026. The prosecution opposed bail citing the commercial quantity of the contraband and the seriousness of the allegations under the NDPS Act.

The primary question before the court was whether the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act apply when the petitioner is implicated solely on a co-accused's disclosure statement without any independent recovery. The court was also called upon to determine if prolonged under-trial detention warrants the dilution of the "twin conditions" for bail under the NDPS Act in light of Article 21 of the Constitution.

Disclosure Statement Of Co-Accused Cannot Be Sole Basis For Implication

The Court observed that the petitioner was not present at the spot and no recovery was effected from his person. The bench noted that the entire case against the petitioner rested upon the disclosure statement of co-accused Jora Singh. Justice Goel emphasized that such statements, in the absence of corroborative evidence, hold very limited evidentiary value in the eyes of the law.

The bench highlighted that relying on an unsubstantiated statement from a co-accused raises serious doubts regarding the fairness and objectivity of the investigation. The Court noted that the veracity of such statements must be tested during the trial and cannot be treated as gospel truth at the stage of considering a bail application.

“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.”

Article 21 Protections Dilute Rigours Of Section 37 NDPS Act

Addressing the stringent "twin conditions" for bail under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, the Court referred to its previous holding in Jaswinder Singh alias Kala versus State of Punjab. The bench reiterated that while bail in commercial quantity cases generally requires meeting the Section 37 rigour, these conditions "pale into oblivion" when balanced against Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

The Court observed that the petitioner had suffered incarceration for nearly six months, and with 15 prosecution witnesses cited—none of whom had been examined yet—the trial was likely to take a considerable amount of time. The bench held that where the trial is procrastinating and the delay is not attributable to the accused, the right to a speedy trial must be prioritized over statutory restrictions.

“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.”

Defining ‘Likelihood’ Of Committing Future Offences

Regarding the second condition of Section 37—that the accused is not likely to commit an offence while on bail—the Court clarified that the word ‘likely’ must be interpreted as a demonstrable and substantial probability of re-offending. It cannot be based on mere theoretical or speculative concerns by the prosecution.

The bench noted that the petitioner was not involved in any other case according to the custody certificate. Justice Goel remarked that the involvement of an applicant in another offence cannot ipso facto result in a conclusion of their propensity for committing future crimes, and the Court must exercise its judicial wisdom based on the specific facts of each case.

“The word ‘likely’ ought to be interpreted as requiring a demonstrable and substantial probability of re-offending by the bail-applicant, rather than a mere theoretical one, as no Court can predict future conduct of the bail-applicant.”

Balancing Personal Liberty With Effective Investigation

The Court emphasized that as regular bail pertains to the life and liberty of an individual, Courts are obligated to strike a balance between safeguarding personal liberty and ensuring the effective administration of justice. The bench found that further detention of the petitioner as an under-trial was not warranted given the circumstances of his implication.

To ensure the integrity of the judicial process, the Court imposed several conditions, including a requirement for the petitioner to submit a monthly affidavit before the trial court affirming that he has not been involved in any other offence. The Court directed that any breach of these conditions would allow the State to move for the cancellation of bail.

The High Court allowed the petition and ordered the release of Gurlal Singh on regular bail. The ruling underscores the primacy of constitutional liberties over the procedural rigours of the NDPS Act, particularly when the prosecution's case relies on weak evidence like co-accused disclosures and the trial faces significant delays.

Date of Decision: 08 July 2026