Anticipatory Bail Granted Where Accused is Implicated Solely Based on Co-Accused’s Custodial Confession

The applicant sought anticipatory bail regarding FIR No. 74/2026 under Section 20 of the NDPS Act

The prosecution alleged that the applicant provided accommodation to the main accused, Man Bahadur, from whom a commercial quantity of charas was recovered

The applicant’s involvement was based solely on a confessional statement made by the co-accused while in police custody

Although interim protection from arrest was previously granted, the State failed to effectively file a status report or produce evidence (such as DD entries or Case Diaries) to prove that the applicant had evaded investigation

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to anticipatory bail when the primary evidence against him is a confessional statement of a co-accused made in police custody

2. Whether the applicant’s alleged non-cooperation with the investigation justified the denial of bail, given the lack of recorded efforts by the Investigating Officer to contact him

Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act regarding the possession and trafficking of cannabis

The principle that a confessional statement of a co-accused recorded during police custody carries limited evidentiary value against another person

Procedural standards for State agencies, emphasizing that the police must provide documented proof of efforts to join an accused to an investigation (such as notices, DD entries, or Case Diaries) before alleging non-cooperation

The Court observed that the prosecution’s case against the applicant lacked substantive corroboration, as it rested entirely on the co-accused's statement

The Bench scrutinized the conduct of the Investigating Officer (IO), noting a lack of professionalism in briefing the prosecutor and failing to ensure the status report was on record

Regarding the State’s claim that the applicant was "untraceable," the Court found the IO’s claims unsubstantiated because no formal notices or Case Diary entries were produced to show any genuine effort to serve the applicant at his disclosed address

The Court further noted that the IO did not attempt to contact the applicant’s counsel or the prosecutor to report the alleged non-traceability, undermining the State's opposition to the grant of liberty

The application was allowed, and it was ordered that in the event of arrest, the applicant be released on bail subject to a personal bond of Rs. 25,000 with one surety

The Court directed that a copy of the order be sent to the Commissioner of Police to issue instructions to investigating officers across Delhi regarding the proper briefing of prosecutors and the diligent handling of bail matters