The High Court held that when an accused is sought to be implicated in a Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act case solely on the basis of a co-accused’s disclosure statement, and has duly joined investigation, confirmation of anticipatory bail is justified, provided custodial interrogation is not required. This judgment follows and applies existing precedent and provides binding authority within Punjab and Haryana for such factual scenarios under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS).
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CRM-M/48140/2025 of Pooja Vs State of Punjab |
| CNR | PHHC011385152025 |
| Date of Registration | 28-08-2025 |
| Decision Date | 30-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | ALLOWED |
| Judgment Author | Mr. Justice Sumeet Goel |
| Court | High Court of Punjab and Haryana |
| Precedent Value | Binding authority within Punjab and Haryana |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms and follows existing precedent, both of this Court and Supreme Court |
| Type of Law | Criminal law (Anticipatory Bail under NDPS Act & BNSS, 2023) |
| Questions of Law | Whether anticipatory bail should be confirmed where the accused is implicated solely on the basis of a co-accused’s disclosure statement and has joined investigation. |
| Ratio Decidendi | Where an accused is implicated in an NDPS Act case only through the disclosure statement of a co-accused, and the investigating authorities do not require custodial interrogation after the accused has duly joined investigation, anticipatory bail should be confirmed, subject to the statutory conditions. The Court relied on Supreme Court and coordinate bench decisions that set out such parameters. Confirmation is not blanket and is restricted to the specific FIR. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | The Court considered that implication solely via co-accused disclosure statements is a weak premise for custodial interrogation, especially when the accused has joined investigation. The statutory conditions under BNSS, 2023, and existing Supreme Court guidance on NDPS bail were followed. Orders confining protection to the specific FIR and reserving liberty for recall/cancellation if there is breach were emphasized. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | The petitioner sought anticipatory bail under Section 482 BNSS in connection with an FIR under Sections 21/29/61/85 NDPS Act. She was implicated solely on the disclosure statement of a co-accused. She expressed willingness to join investigation. Pursuant to Court direction, she did join investigation, and the State confirmed that her custodial interrogation was not required. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate criminal courts in Punjab and Haryana |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts and potentially the Supreme Court in analogous fact situations under the BNSS regime |
| Follows |
|
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Clarifies that joining investigation is a prerequisite for confirmation of anticipatory bail where implication is based solely on a co-accused’s disclosure statement in NDPS cases.
- Affirms anticipatory bail can be confirmed, subject to Section 482(2) BNSS, when custodial interrogation is not required — even for serious NDPS offences.
- Bail protection is not blanket or automatic; it is restricted to the specific FIR and subject to compliance with statutory conditions.
- State or complainant retains liberty to seek cancellation/recall of bail for breach of any statutory condition or other sufficient cause.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
The Court began by noting that the petitioner was only implicated on the basis of a co-accused’s disclosure statement. On being granted interim protection, the petitioner duly joined investigation. The State confirmed that custodial interrogation was not required.
The Court referenced and relied on previous Supreme Court pronouncements (Vijay Singh, Pallulabid Ahmad Arimut, Toofan Singh) and a coordinate bench of this Court (Ashu v. State of Punjab), which collectively establish that implication solely through a disclosure statement without other evidence, and in absence of necessity for custodial interrogation, weigh in favour of granting anticipatory bail.
The statutory regime under the BNSS and the rationale against “blanket” bail were reiterated. The Court emphasised that bail protection is confined to the FIR in question and subject to cancellation for breach.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Claimed implication solely on basis of co-accused’s disclosure statement, with no independent evidence.
- Expressed readiness to join investigation and cooperate fully.
- Cited Supreme Court and High Court judgments to support grant of anticipatory bail.
Respondent/State
- Initially contested whether the petitioner had actually joined investigation.
- Ultimately, on instructions, confirmed the petitioner had joined investigation and custodial interrogation was not required.
Factual Background
The petitioner was implicated in an FIR registered under Sections 21/29/61/85 of the NDPS Act at Police Station Salemm Tabri, District Ludhiana, solely on the basis of a disclosure statement made by a co-accused from whom contraband was allegedly recovered. The petitioner sought anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023, and expressed willingness to join investigation. Interim bail was granted subject to conditions, and after joining investigation, the State confirmed custodial interrogation was unnecessary.
Statutory Analysis
- The Court analyzed Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, which governs the power to grant anticipatory bail.
- The Court emphasized observance of conditions under Section 482(2) of BNSS for such bail.
- No discussion of the merits of the allegations or other substantive NDPS Act provisions was undertaken.
Procedural Innovations
- The process of directing the petitioner to join investigation before the Illaqa Magistrate with the Investigating Officer present was implemented to verify compliance with interim bail conditions, ensuring transparency and fairness in bail proceedings.
Alert Indicators
- Precedent Followed – When existing law is affirmed.