The High Court clarifies that mere nomination of an accused solely on the basis of a co-accused’s disclosure statement is insufficient to justify custodial interrogation or denial of anticipatory bail where no incriminating recovery is effected from the applicant and the recovered contraband from the co-accused is of non-commercial quantity. This serves as binding precedent for all subordinate courts under its jurisdiction.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CRM-M/39198/2025 of PRATAP Vs STATE OF HARYANA |
| CNR | PHHC011115352025 |
| Date of Registration | 22-07-2025 |
| Decision Date | 10-09-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | ALLOWED |
| Judgment Author | MRS. JUSTICE SUKHVINDER KAUR |
| Court | High Court of Punjab and Haryana |
| Precedent Value | Binding on subordinate courts within jurisdiction |
| Type of Law | Criminal Procedure, NDPS Act, Anticipatory Bail, BNSS Section 482 |
| Questions of Law | Whether an accused can be denied anticipatory bail solely on the basis of a disclosure statement by a co-accused when no recovery is effected from him and the seized contraband from the other accused is of non-commercial quantity? |
| Ratio Decidendi | The Court held that in the absence of any recovery from the petitioner and when the only material against him is the disclosure statement of a co-accused—which by itself is insufficient to justify arrest or custodial interrogation—grant of anticipatory bail is warranted. The gravity of the offence is mitigated where the recovered quantity is non-commercial, and if custodial interrogation is not required, no useful purpose is served by refusal of bail. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | The petitioner was named as a supplier only in the disclosure statement of a co-accused from whom 37 strips (10 tablets per strip) of Alprazolam were recovered. No recovery was effected from the petitioner and he expressed willingness to join investigation. The recovery from the co-accused was of non-commercial quantity. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts within Punjab and Haryana jurisdiction |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts in India and Supreme Court on anticipatory bail considerations under similar factual matrix |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Expressly clarifies that mere disclosure statement of a co-accused, unsupported by any recovery from the applicant, is insufficient to refuse anticipatory bail in NDPS cases.
- The recovery from co-accused being of non-commercial quantity reduces the gravity of the accusation.
- Where no custodial interrogation is needed and the applicant undertakes to join investigation, bail cannot be denied solely on co-accused’s disclosure.
- Lawyers can use this judgment to argue for anticipatory bail for clients who are only named in disclosure statements with no independent corroboration.
- Reinforces that courts must assess the necessity of custodial interrogation and presence of tangible evidence before depriving liberty at the bail stage.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court noted the only material connecting the petitioner to the offence was the co-accused’s disclosure statement. No contraband or incriminating material was recovered from the petitioner.
- The law does not permit a person to be denied bail solely on a co-accused’s self-incriminating statement if unsupported by further evidence.
- Recovery already having been effected from the co-accused, and that too of a ‘non-commercial quantity’, further reduced the severity of the case against the petitioner.
- The necessity for custodial interrogation must be justified; in the absence of such necessity and where the petitioner is willing to cooperate, bail should not be denied.
- The order was made subject to the petitioner fulfilling conditions under Section 482(2) BNSS and complying with the investigation process as may be notified by the Investigating Officer.
- The court expressly refrained from making observations on merits, limiting findings to the bail application context.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- No recovery effected from or connected to the petitioner.
- Petitioner’s implication based solely on the disclosure statement of co-accused, which is legally inadmissible by itself.
- Custodial interrogation not required; petitioner ready to join investigation.
State
- Allegations against the petitioner are grave and serious.
- The petitioner is specifically named as supplier in the co-accused’s disclosure.
- Opposed grant of bail on grounds of seriousness and nomination in disclosure.
Factual Background
The matter arose from an FIR registered at Police Station Sarai Khawaja, Faridabad, under Section 20-B/61/85 of the NDPS Act following recovery of 37 strips (each containing 10 tablets) of Alprazolam from one Sharvan Yadav. The present petitioner was named as the alleged supplier solely on the strength of Sharvan Yadav’s disclosure statement. No recovery was made from the petitioner. He sought anticipatory bail contending false implication and absence of custodial interrogation requirement.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 482 BNSS (corresponding to Section 438 CrPC as to anticipatory bail): The Court referred to the statutory safeguards under Section 482, observing its applicability to protect liberty where investigation can proceed without custodial interrogation.
- NDPS Act, Sections 20-B/61/85: The Court noted that the recovered quantity from the co-accused was non-commercial, impacting the bail policy under the Act.
Procedural Innovations
- The judgment clarified the standard for exercising power under Section 482 of BNSS in the context of anticipatory bail where only a disclosure statement is present against the accused.
- Conditions for release under Section 482(2) BNSS were explicitly linked to the satisfaction of the Arresting/Investigating Officer and compliance with the investigation process.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The judgment reinforces the established principle that a disclosure statement alone, unsupported by recovery or independent corroboration, is insufficient to deny anticipatory bail where custodial interrogation is unnecessary.