Anticipatory bail under the NDPS Act cannot be denied solely on the basis of disclosure statements from a co-accused in the absence of other incriminating material; Punjab & Haryana High Court upholds and applies Supreme Court precedent, clarifying the approach for subordinate courts in NDPS bail applications.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CRM-M/42271/2025 of ANIL Vs STATE OF HARYANA |
| CNR | PHHC011221352025 |
| Date of Registration | 02-08-2025 |
| Decision Date | 28-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | ALLOWED |
| Judgment Author | MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL |
| Court | High Court of Punjab and Haryana |
| Precedent Value | Binding within the jurisdiction of the Punjab & Haryana High Court; persuasive elsewhere |
| Overrules / Affirms |
|
| Type of Law | Criminal Law; NDPS Act; Anticipatory Bail |
| Questions of Law | Whether a disclosure statement of a co-accused, without any independent corroborative material, is sufficient to deny anticipatory bail under the NDPS Act? |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The Court reaffirmed that mere disclosure statements made by a co-accused cannot by themselves form the sole ground for refusing anticipatory bail, particularly under the NDPS Act. It was emphasized that such statements have weak evidentiary value and are inadmissible as confessional evidence post-Tofan Singh. The court must perform a prima facie assessment of corroborative material linking the accused to the crime to avoid misuse or abuse of process. The admissibility and evidentiary value of disclosure statements will be decided at trial, not at the bail stage. Anticipatory bail protection is conditional, person-specific, and confined to the FIR at hand. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | Extensive reliance on the principle that Section 67 NDPS Act statements are inadmissible as confessions and that police statements under Section 25 of the Evidence Act have limited value (Tofan Singh); bail decisions must weigh personal liberty with investigation needs, and corroborative evidence is essential. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | Petitioner was not named in the FIR nor apprehended at the spot; his implication was solely on account of disclosure statement by a co-accused in police custody. Petitioner joined and cooperated with the investigation. There was no other evidence or material linking petitioner to the seized contraband. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts and authorities under the jurisdiction of Punjab & Haryana High Court |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts and the Supreme Court, particularly in the context of NDPS Act anticipatory bail jurisprudence |
| Follows |
|
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reiterates and applies Supreme Court holdings: Disclosure statements under Section 67 NDPS Act or Section 25 Evidence Act, without corroboration, are not enough to reject anticipatory bail.
- Clarifies that active participation in investigation and lack of other evidence weigh heavily in favor of pre-arrest bail.
- Emphasizes that the evidentiary value of such statements is for trial, not for consideration at the bail stage.
- Explicitly restricts the bail order to the FIR in question, warning against treating it as a blanket order.
- Directs that State retains liberty to seek cancellation of bail if conditions are violated or new material emerges.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The court began by referencing leading Supreme Court decisions—Tofan Singh, Najmunisha, Pallulabid Ahmad Arimutta, and Vijay Singh—holding that confessional statements to police (including those under Section 67 NDPS Act) are inadmissible and cannot by themselves justify conviction or pretrial incarceration.
- It was observed that at the anticipatory bail stage, courts must not meticulously assess pending evidence, but consider if prosecution has at least prima facie material beyond inadmissible disclosure statements.
- The petitioner’s absence from the spot and sole implication via such statements, with no other factual link, was found insufficient to deny bail.
- The Court balanced personal liberty with effective investigation (as per established bail jurisprudence) and found no statutory bar to anticipatory bail on the facts.
- The interim order granting bail was made absolute, subject to compliance and liberty for recall if conditions are violated.
- The order was expressly confined to the named FIR and not to be seen as blanket protection.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Petitioner was neither named in the FIR nor apprehended at the spot.
- His implication was solely based on the co-accused’s disclosure statement.
- Petitioner is a first offender with no prior criminal history.
- He has already joined and cooperated with the investigation.
- No material connects him to the alleged contraband.
Respondent (State)
- Opposed grant of anticipatory bail due to the serious nature of NDPS offences.
- Relied on the reply filed on behalf of the State.
- Asserted that the FIR concerns offences under the NDPS Act, thus the petitioner should not be granted concession of anticipatory bail.
Factual Background
An FIR was registered under Sections 21 and 29 of the NDPS Act at Police Station City Rohtak, based on recovery of contraband from a co-accused on 01.01.2025. The petitioner was not present at the spot and was not named in the FIR. His only implication arose from a disclosure statement made by the co-accused during police custody. The petitioner subsequently joined and cooperated with the investigation.
Statutory Analysis
- The judgment discusses Sections 21 and 29 of the NDPS Act regarding offences and abetment/conspiracy related to narcotic substances.
- Section 67 of the NDPS Act and Section 25 of the Evidence Act are considered; confessional statements to police officers are inadmissible.
- Section 438 of the CrPC (and Section 482(2) of BNSS, 2023) governing anticipatory bail were explicitly applied. The order stressed that conditions for anticipatory bail must be strictly observed and protection cannot be “blanket”.
Procedural Innovations
- The court clarified that interim protection granted at the notice stage can be made absolute after considering rival submissions and legal precedents.
- Bail protection was limited explicitly to the specific FIR, rejecting “blanket” bail protection.
- Liberty to the State to seek cancellation if bail conditions are flouted or new evidence surfaces.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu and subsequent Supreme Court authorities were expressly followed regarding the inadmissibility of confessional statements to police and bail principles under the NDPS Act.