The High Court clarified that pre-arrest bail can be considered where the only evidence against the accused is a disclosure statement of a co-accused — consistent with established Supreme Court precedent and binding for subordinate courts in NDPS cases. The order is expressly not a blanket bail and is subject to compliance with statutory conditions.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CRM-M/53299/2025 of LAKHAN ALIAS LUCKY Vs STATE OF HARYANA |
| CNR | PHHC011528532025 |
| Date of Registration | 18-09-2025 |
| Decision Date | 28-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | ALLOWED |
| Judgment Author | MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL |
| Court | High Court of Punjab and Haryana |
| Precedent Value | Binding on subordinate courts |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms Supreme Court and High Court precedents |
| Type of Law | Criminal law — NDPS Act, Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita |
| Questions of Law | Whether anticipatory bail under Section 482 BNSS is justified when the only evidence is a co-accused’s disclosure statement in NDPS offences. |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The petitioner’s implication in the FIR was solely on the basis of a disclosure statement made by a co-accused. The High Court, relying on Supreme Court judgments (e.g., Jugraj Singh v. State of Punjab, Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu), held that pre-arrest bail may be granted in such cases when the petitioner joins investigation and no further custodial interrogation is required. The court noted that bail orders are not to be granted in blanket terms and are subject to statutory conditions. No opinion on the merits was expressed. The matter is decided in conformity with binding judicial precedent. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | The court relied upon settled Supreme Court jurisprudence that a co-accused’s disclosure statement alone cannot be the basis for prosecution under NDPS; anticipatory bail is appropriate in such circumstances when the petitioner joins investigation. The decision is consistent with the approach taken in recent Supreme Court and High Court judgments. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | The petitioner was implicated in an FIR for offences under Section 20(b)(ii)(a) of the NDPS Act on the sole basis of a disclosure statement by a co-accused. No contraband was recovered from the petitioner. The petitioner joined investigation as directed; the State confirmed that custodial interrogation was not required. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts within Punjab and Haryana |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts, especially in cases where prosecution is based solely on co-accused disclosure statements under NDPS Act |
| Follows | Supreme Court: Jugraj Singh v. State of Punjab, Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu, etc. |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Confirms that anticipatory bail may be granted under Section 482 BNSS where the only evidence is a co-accused’s disclosure statement and the petitioner has joined investigation.
- Reiterates that such bail is not blanket; it applies only to the specific FIR and subject to statutory conditions.
- Reaffirms Supreme Court precedents about the evidentiary value (or lack thereof) of co-accused disclosures in NDPS cases.
- Bail is not automatic; violation of conditions gives State/complainant liberty to seek cancellation.
- Expressly restricts the protection from arrest to the subject FIR only.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The court considered the law laid down by the Supreme Court (particularly in Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu and Jugraj Singh v. State of Punjab) that a disclosure statement of a co-accused, without further corroborative evidence, cannot form the sole basis for prosecution under the NDPS Act.
- The petitioner had been implicated solely on such a disclosure statement; no recovery was made from him.
- The petitioner joined investigation as directed, and the State did not require further custodial interrogation.
- Consequently, the court affirmed interim bail and made it absolute, subject to statutory conditions under Section 482(2) BNSS.
- The order is not to be construed as blanket or indefinite bail; it is strictly limited to the FIR in question.
- The State or complainant retains liberty to seek cancellation if the bail conditions are violated or for other sufficient cause.
- No observations or opinions are made regarding the merits of the case.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- The petitioner is sought to be implicated only on the basis of a disclosure statement made by a co-accused.
- The petitioner is willing to join and has joined the investigation and to cooperate fully.
- Cited Supreme Court decisions that mere disclosure statements do not constitute sufficient evidence for implication/prosecution.
- Sought protection from arrest.
Respondent (State)
- Confirmed (on instructions) that petitioner joined investigation and is not required for further custodial interrogation.
Factual Background
The petitioner was named as an accused in FIR No. 420 dated 13.08.2025 under Section 20(b)(ii)(a) of the NDPS Act at Police Station Hisar City, solely upon a disclosure statement made by a co-accused from whom contraband was allegedly recovered. No contraband was recovered from the petitioner. He sought anticipatory bail under Section 482 BNSS and, during proceedings, joined the investigation as directed by the court. The State informed the court that no further custodial interrogation was needed.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) discussed regarding the power to grant pre-arrest (anticipatory) bail and its application.
- Section 482(2) of BNSS: Conditions enumerated for anticipatory bail orders; must be complied with for bail to be operative and subject to cancellation upon violation.
- Section 20(b)(ii)(a) of the NDPS Act: The specific provision under which the FIR was registered against the petitioner.
Procedural Innovations
- The order makes clear that anticipatory bail is not to be granted as a “blanket” order, and protection is expressly limited to the FIR in question and subject to statutory conditions.
- State/complainant given explicit liberty to move for cancellation of bail upon violation of any conditions under Section 482(2) BNSS or sufficient cause being shown.
Alert Indicators
- Precedent Followed – The High Court has followed and reaffirmed existing Supreme Court precedent regarding anticipatory bail in NDPS cases where implication is solely on a co-accused’s disclosure statement.