The Punjab & Haryana High Court upholds the established principle that a disclosure statement of a co-accused, without independent corroboration, cannot be the sole basis for denying bail under the NDPS Act; reaffirming Supreme Court precedent and clarifying that undertrial incarceration is unwarranted in such circumstances. Stands as binding authority for all subordinate courts within Punjab & Haryana.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CRM-M/26576/2025 of SACHIN KUMAR Vs STATE OF HARYANA |
| CNR | PHHC010772002025 |
| Date of Registration | 13-05-2025 |
| Decision Date | 01-09-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | ALLOWED |
| Judgment Author | MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL |
| Court | High Court of Punjab & Haryana |
| Precedent Value | Binding on subordinate courts of Punjab & Haryana |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms prevailing Supreme Court precedents; follows earlier High Court and Supreme Court rulings |
| Type of Law | Criminal – Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985; Bail Jurisprudence under BNSS, 2023 |
| Questions of Law | Whether the uncorroborated disclosure/confession of a co-accused can be the sole basis to deny regular bail in an NDPS Act offence. |
| Ratio Decidendi | The Court held that in the absence of corroborative evidence, a disclosure statement by a co-accused is of limited evidentiary value and cannot alone justify denial of bail under the NDPS Act. Precedents cited establish that confessions or disclosures made by a co-accused must be scrutinized cautiously and require independent evidence for the purposes of conviction or continued detention. Given that the petitioner was not present at the scene and was nominated solely on the basis of another’s statement, continued incarceration is unjustified. The bail order is subject to fulfilment of strict conditions to ensure the petitioner’s future conduct. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | The petitioner was implicated in an NDPS FIR following the alleged recovery of Diphenoxylate Hydrochloride tablets from a co-accused; the only basis for his implication was the disclosure statement of the co-accused; the petitioner has been in custody since 24.01.2025 with no recovery from him and no prior criminal involvement; the prosecution cited no independent evidence. |
| Citations |
|
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in Punjab & Haryana |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts, and may be cited before the Supreme Court |
| Follows |
|
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reaffirms that a co-accused’s disclosure statement, without independent corroboration, cannot alone form the basis for bail denial in NDPS prosecutions.
- Directs that trial courts and bail courts must scrutinize the role and evidence against an accused, especially where implication is solely by co-accused’s confession.
- Orders the imposition of practical bail conditions, including monthly affidavits of non-involvement, to reduce misuse fears.
- Useful precedent for seeking bail in NDPS cases where the accused is not named in the FIR or found with contraband, but is implicated only through uncorroborated disclosure.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court scrutinized the grounds of the petitioner’s incarceration, emphasizing that sole implication through a co-accused’s disclosure statement is “a very weak piece of evidence” and insufficient for conviction or prolonged pretrial detention.
- The Court expressly followed recent High Court precedent in Anshul Sardana v. State of Punjab, which itself rested on Supreme Court decisions including Tofan Singh, Pallulabid Ahmad Arimutta, Vijay Singh, and Smt. Najmunisha.
- It was noted that disclosure statements in the absence of any substantive corroborative evidence lack sufficient evidentiary value for denying bail.
- The petitioner was not present at the scene, nor was any recovery made from him; his implication rested entirely upon the co-accused’s statement.
- The Court balanced the need for personal liberty against the necessity of effective investigation and administration of justice, finding that further undertrial detention would be unwarranted.
- The order for bail was made subject to strict and enforceable bail conditions to mitigate concerns about flight risk or evidence tampering.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Petitioner has been in custody since 24.01.2025.
- No recovery was made from the petitioner.
- The only basis for implication is the uncorroborated disclosure statement of a co-accused.
- Mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act were not complied with.
- Suffered incarceration for more than six months; seeks regular bail.
State
- Allegations are serious in nature.
- Petitioner does not deserve regular bail.
- Relied on the fact and seriousness of the NDPS offences.
Factual Background
The case pertains to the alleged recovery of 4800 tablets of Diphenoxylate Hydrochloride from a co-accused. The petitioner was not present at the scene of recovery and was implicated solely on the basis of a co-accused’s disclosure statement. He was arrested on 24.01.2025, with no further evidence or recovery attributed to him, and no prior involvement in any other FIR. The prosecution cited no independent substantive evidence connecting him to the offence.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 (corresponds to old Section 439 CrPC) governs the grant of regular bail.
- Sections 21(c), 29, 61, and 85 of the NDPS Act, 1985 were invoked in the FIR.
- The judgment discusses the evidentiary value of disclosure/confessional statements under NDPS and reaffirms the Supreme Court’s interpretation that such statements are inherently weak evidence unless supported by independent corroborative material.
- The admissibility and weight of disclosure statements remain issues for the trial stage.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or concurring opinions are recorded or summarized in the judgment.
Procedural Innovations
The Court imposed a distinctive bail condition: the requirement for the petitioner to submit a monthly affidavit to the trial court affirming non-involvement in any offence post-release on bail; non-compliance or involvement in any fresh offence triggers a duty upon the State to seek cancellation of bail.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Existing Supreme Court and High Court law confirmed and applied.
Citations
- AIR 2020 SC 5592 (Tofan Singh)
- 2024 INSC 290 (Smt. Najmunisha, Abdul Hamid Chandmiya @ Ladoo Bapu v. State of Gujarat, Narcotics Control Bureau)
- 2022 (1) RCR (Criminal) 762 (State by (NCB) Bengaluru v. Pallulabid Ahmad Arimutta & Anr.)
- SLP (Crl.) No. 1266/2023, decided on 17.05.2023 (Vijay Singh v. The State of Haryana)
- Anshul Sardana vs. State of Punjab, CRM-M-65094-2024 (2025: PHHC:004198)