The Court held that when only a non-commercial quantity of contraband is recovered from a co-accused, and an accused is involved solely on the basis of a co-accused’s disclosure statement, regular bail may be granted; Section 37 of the NDPS Act does not bar bail in such circumstances. This judgment reaffirms established principles of bail law in NDPS matters where Section 37 is inapplicable. The decision has binding effect for subordinate courts under Punjab and Haryana jurisdiction, and persuasive value elsewhere.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CRM-M/47375/2025 of AJAYPAL SINGH @ AJAY Vs STATE OF PUNJAB |
| CNR | PHHC011359492025 |
| Date of Registration | 26-08-2025 |
| Decision Date | 02-09-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | ALLOWED |
| Judgment Author | MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ |
| Court | High Court of Punjab and Haryana |
| Precedent Value | Binding on subordinate courts under Punjab and Haryana; persuasive elsewhere |
| Type of Law | Criminal Law – Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) |
| Questions of Law | Whether regular bail can be granted under the NDPS Act when only non-commercial quantity is recovered from a co-accused and the sole basis for arraying the petitioner as accused is the disclosure statement of that co-accused. |
| Ratio Decidendi |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
|
| Citations | None provided in the judgment text. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in Punjab and Haryana |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Clarifies that Section 37 NDPS Act does not restrict the court’s power to grant bail where only non-commercial quantity is recovered.
- Reiterates that admission of an accused solely through a co-accused’s disclosure statement is insufficient for denial of bail absent other corroborative evidence.
- The judgment underscores that pre-trial custody is a relevant factor in granting bail in such circumstances.
- The fact of co-accused being in two other criminal cases under IPC, but with no NDPS history, was not held to be prohibitive for bail.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court examined that the only recovery (15 grams of heroin) was from the co-accused, constituting a non-commercial quantity under the NDPS Act.
- The petitioner’s implication was solely on the basis of the co-accused’s disclosure statement.
- The Court reiterated that Section 37 NDPS Act applies only for commercial quantity and does not bar bail for a non-commercial quantity case.
- The Court considered the incarceration period of the petitioner (1 month 26 days) and the likelihood of prolonged trial.
- Since the veracity of allegations could only be assessed post-trial and there was no direct recovery or independent evidence against the petitioner, bail was justified.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Petitioner was not present at time of occurrence; no recovery was effected from him.
- Implication is solely on basis of co-accused’s disclosure statement, which is inadmissible.
- The quantity recovered from co-accused was non-commercial; Section 37 NDPS Act is not attracted.
- No independent witness was joined; the petitioner is in custody since 06.07.2025.
- Petitioner deserves regular bail.
State
- 15 grams of heroin recovered from co-accused; during investigation, name of petitioner surfaced.
- Petitioner is involved in two other IPC cases.
- Case is under investigation; opposed grant of bail.
Factual Background
The case arose from the recovery of 15 grams of heroin from a co-accused on 04.07.2025 during police patrolling at Jandiala Guru, Amritsar. The petitioner was implicated only on the basis of the co-accused’s disclosure statement, with no recovery made from him. He was arrested on 06.07.2025, had no other case under NDPS Act, and spent almost two months in custody before approaching the High Court after bail was denied by the Special Court.
Statutory Analysis
- The Court specifically addressed Section 37 of the NDPS Act, clarifying its stringent bail restrictions apply only in cases of commercial quantity recovery; it is inapplicable for non-commercial quantities.
- Reference was made to Section 50 NDPS Act in the petitioner’s submissions but not substantively analyzed as part of the decision.
- The evidentiary value of disclosure statements under the Evidence Act was acknowledged in passing.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or concurring opinions are present in the judgment.
Procedural Innovations
No novel procedural directives or innovations are issued in the judgment.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The decision reaffirms settled principles regarding bail for non-commercial quantity cases under NDPS Act.
Citations
- No SCC, AIR, MANU, or neutral citations are specified within the judgment.
- The order is speaking, but reportable status is not indicated.