Court affirms the grant of anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, where the only linkage of the accused to the offence is a co-accused’s disclosure statement and the accused has cooperated with the investigation. The Court follows existing Supreme Court and High Court precedents, confirming their continued applicability to NDPS matters. Order is binding within subordinate courts in the jurisdiction and is persuasive in other fora.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CRM-M/58175/2025 of MOHIT Vs STATE OF HARYANA |
| CNR | PHHC011659902025 |
| Date of Registration | 14-10-2025 |
| Decision Date | 28-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | ALLOWED |
| Judgment Author | MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL |
| Court | High Court of Punjab and Haryana |
| Precedent Value | Binding within jurisdiction |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms existing Supreme Court and High Court precedents |
| Type of Law | Criminal Procedure (BNSS), NDPS Act |
| Questions of Law | Whether anticipatory bail can be granted where the only basis to implicate accused is the co-accused’s disclosure statement and the petitioner has joined and cooperated in investigation. |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The court, relying on Supreme Court and High Court precedents, held that where the only allegation against an accused is based on the disclosure statement of a co-accused and the accused has joined and cooperated in the investigation, anticipatory bail can be granted. Such an implication, without further substantive evidence, does not merit refusal of pre-arrest bail, especially when the investigating authorities do not require custodial interrogation of the accused. Further, the order granting anticipatory bail is not blanket and is restricted to the facts of the FIR in question. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | The legal foundation rests on Supreme Court pronouncements that disclosure statements of co-accused, without further corroboration, are not sufficient to deny anticipatory bail. The Court placed emphasis on the petitioner’s cooperation with the investigation and no further requirement of custodial interrogation. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | The petitioner was apprehending arrest under FIR No. 0192 dated 25.09.2025 for Section 18(C) of NDPS Act. The only basis for his implication was a co-accused’s disclosure statement. The petitioner expressed willingness to cooperate; the State confirmed his cooperation and stated no further custodial interrogation was required. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts within Punjab & Haryana High Court’s jurisdiction |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts and the Supreme Court |
| Follows |
|
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reaffirms that mere disclosure statements of a co-accused, absent corroborating material, are insufficient to deny anticipatory bail in NDPS cases.
- Clarifies that cooperation with investigation and non-requirement of custodial interrogation by the police weigh in favour of granting pre-arrest bail.
- Interprets Section 482 of the BNSS (analogous to Section 438 CrPC) as the operative provision for anticipatory bail in the new code, without substantive departure from CrPC jurisprudence.
- Restricts the anticipatory bail protection to the specific FIR and cautions against blanket or indefinite immunity.
- Lawyers should ensure full cooperation with investigation is demonstrated and on record for optimal relief in similar pre-arrest bail applications.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court began with the petitioner’s apprehension of arrest based on a disclosure statement by a co-accused in an NDPS case.
- It noted the petitioner had joined investigation as directed and that the State did not seek further custodial interrogation.
- On the key legal question, the Court relied on Supreme Court precedents including Vijay Singh v. State of Haryana, Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu, and others to reiterate that a disclosure statement of a co-accused, without more, does not constitute substantive evidence against another accused.
- The logic adopted extended the principle that in the absence of collection of further independent evidence or recovery, continued incarceration or custodial interrogation is not justified.
- The Court made explicit reference to its own earlier decision in Ashu v. State of Punjab, and the Supreme Court’s ruling in Jugraj Singh v. State of Punjab, affirming their continued applicability post-enactment of the BNSS.
- Grant of anticipatory bail was thus confirmed and made absolute, strictly subject to cooperation, statutory bail conditions and the specific facts of the FIR.
- It was emphasised that the order is not a blanket protection and is limited to the present FIR, as per the current legal landscape.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- The petitioner is implicated solely on the basis of a disclosure statement by a co-accused.
- There is willingness to join and cooperate with investigation.
Respondent (State)
- Confirmed that the petitioner joined the investigation.
- Stated that petitioner is not required for further custodial interrogation.
Factual Background
The petitioner apprehended arrest in connection with FIR No. 0192 dated 25.09.2025 under Section 18(C) of the NDPS Act at Police Station Rajound, District Kaithal. The only evidence linking the petitioner to the alleged offence was the disclosure statement of a co-accused from whom the contraband had allegedly been recovered. The petitioner joined investigation as directed and the State submitted that no further custodial interrogation was necessary.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 was interpreted as the provision corresponding to anticipatory bail under the previous CrPC framework.
- Section 482(2) of BNSS was specifically referenced for conditions to be imposed with anticipatory bail.
- No new, expansive, or restrictive interpretation of NDPS Act provisions or BNSS conditions was undertaken beyond established precedent.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed