The Punjab and Haryana High Court clarifies that mere implication through a co-accused’s disclosure statement, without corroborative evidence, cannot by itself bar grant of regular bail under the NDPS Act, even in cases involving commercial quantity. The decision upholds and elucidates settled Supreme Court and High Court authorities, reinforcing nuanced discretion for regular bail under Section 37 NDPS Act, and provides binding guidelines for future bail applications in NDPS cases within the court’s jurisdiction.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CRM-M/47023/2025 of JAGGA SINGH Vs STATE OF PUNJAB |
| CNR | PHHC011356742025 |
| Date of Registration | 25-08-2025 |
| Decision Date | 01-09-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | ALLOWED |
| Judgment Author | MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL |
| Court | High Court of Punjab and Haryana |
| Bench | SINGLE BENCH |
| Precedent Value | Binding on subordinate courts in Punjab, Haryana, and Chandigarh |
| Overrules / Affirms |
|
| Type of Law | Criminal Law – Bail under NDPS Act |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi (3–8 sentences) |
The Court held that the sole reliance on the disclosure statement of a co-accused, without any corroborative material, is insufficient to deny bail under Section 37 of the NDPS Act. Such statements, in law, hold limited evidentiary value unless substantiated by independent evidence, and their admissibility and weight is a matter for the trial. The Court clarified that the rigors of Section 37 are cumulative but subject to judicial discretion; courts must prima facie assess material for “reasonable grounds to believe” innocence and likelihood of re-offending. Further, prior involvement in other FIRs cannot, by itself, justify denial of bail absent specific evidence in the present case. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
Petitioner implicated in a FIR under Sections 15/25/29 NDPS Act, alleging recovery of 378 kg poppy husk from a car belonging to a co-accused; petitioner named solely via co-accused Jagtar Singh’s disclosure statement; no recovery made from petitioner; in custody since 22.5.2025; regular bail sought under Section 483 BNSS; prosecution asserts serious offence and Section 37 bar on bail. |
| Citations |
|
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in Punjab, Haryana, and Chandigarh |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts, Supreme Court (especially regarding bail principles under NDPS Act where sole evidence is co-accused’s disclosure) |
| Follows |
|
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Clarifies that mere implication through a co-accused’s disclosure statement, without independent corroborative material, is a weak basis for denying bail under Section 37 NDPS Act.
- Reaffirms that Section 37 NDPS Act rigors are cumulative, but bail discretion persists where “reasonable grounds” are found from record, not from the mere existence of a disclosure statement.
- Highlights that prior involvement in other cases is not, by itself, sufficient to deny bail in the absence of material directly linking the accused to the present FIR.
- Establishes detailed guidelines for the application of Section 37 NDPS Act in bail matters, with practical directions regarding conditions to be imposed on bail.
- The decision is binding precedent within the jurisdiction and may be cited to argue for bail when evidence is limited to uncorroborated co-accused statements.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court evaluated the sole basis of accusation—namely, the co-accused’s disclosure statement—finding no corroborative evidence connecting the petitioner to the offence.
- Citing Anshul Sardana v. State of Punjab and Supreme Court judgments, the Court reaffirmed that confessions or disclosure statements of co-accused are inherently weak evidence and require corroboration.
- The Court summarized the conditions under Section 37 NDPS Act, that bail in commercial quantity cases requires: (i) court’s satisfaction that there are reasonable grounds to believe the accused is not guilty, and (ii) that the accused is not likely to commit further offences.
- The judgment elaborated, following Jaswinder Singh alias Kala v. State of Punjab, that these are cumulative conditions and detailed factors to guide judicial discretion, including the context, antecedents, and the prima facie assessment of evidence.
- Prior involvement in other FIRs, per Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi and High Court cases, is not an adequate standalone ground to deny bail.
- The Court concluded that, in the present case, bail should be granted with strict conditions, since continued incarceration was unwarranted in absence of substantive evidence beyond the co-accused statement.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Petitioner in custody since 22.5.2025.
- Sole basis of accusation is disclosure statement of co-accused Jagtar Singh.
- No recovery effected from petitioner and no other material links him to the contraband.
- Alleged non-compliance with mandatory NDPS Act provisions.
- Suffered incarceration for over 3 months; seeks regular bail.
State
- Opposed grant of bail, arguing seriousness of allegations.
- Invoked rigors of Section 37 NDPS Act as bar to bail.
- Submitted custody certificate and highlighted petitioner’s alleged involvement in other FIRs.
Factual Background
The petitioner was implicated in connection with an FIR registered under Sections 15, 25, and 29 of the NDPS Act, alleging recovery of 378 kg of poppy husk from a car owned by a co-accused, Jagtar Singh. The only material linking the petitioner to the offence was the disclosure statement of Jagtar Singh, mentioning the petitioner and another co-accused as having paid money. There was no recovery from the petitioner and he was not present at the spot. The petitioner has been in custody since 22.5.2025 and sought regular bail under Section 483 BNSS.
Statutory Analysis
- NDPS Act, Section 37: The Court sets out that bail for offences involving commercial quantity can only be granted if the Court finds “reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence and is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.” These are cumulative and in addition to standard bail principles.
- The Court emphasized that the evidentiary standard for bail is not as high as for final acquittal, and a disclosure statement unsupported by independent material does not meet the threshold.
- The Court also referenced Article 21 of the Constitution, to highlight the balancing of personal liberty and the need for fair investigation.
Procedural Innovations
- The Court directed that, in addition to general bail conditions, the petitioner must submit a monthly affidavit before the trial court affirming non-involvement in any offence post-release, and deposit his passport if any.
- The judgment explicitly allows for the State to move for cancellation of bail in case of breach of conditions, upon which the Court shall decide on merits.
Alert Indicators
- Precedent Followed – The judgment affirms and applies established Supreme Court and High Court bail jurisprudence regarding Section 37 NDPS Act and the evidentiary value of co-accused’s disclosure statements.
Citations
- AIR 2020 Supreme Court 5592 (Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu)
- 2024 INSC 290 (Smt. Najmunisha v. State of Gujarat)
- 2022 (1) RCR (Criminal) 762 (State by (NCB) Bengaluru v. Pallulabid Ahmad Arimutta)
- SLP (Crl.) No. 1266/2023, decided 17.05.2023 (Vijay Singh v. State of Haryana)
- 2012 (1) RCR (Criminal) 586 (Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi v. State of U.P.)
- 1998 (2) RCR (Criminal) 477 (Sridhar Das v. State, Calcutta HC)
- 1998 (3) RCR (Criminal) 191 (Balraj v. State of Haryana)
- 2025:PHHC:004198 (Anshul Sardana v. State of Punjab)
- 2025:PHHC:089161 (Jaswinder Singh alias Kala v. State of Punjab)