Anticipatory bail may be denied where co-accused disclosure warrants custodial interrogation into narcotics supply chain.

The petitioner sought anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, corresponding to Section 438 Cr.P.C., in FIR No. 42 dated 19 April 2025, registered under Sections 21 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, at Police Station Kulgarhi, District Ferozepur.

Co-accused William Max was apprehended, and 126 grams of heroin along with ₹3,75,720 in cash was allegedly recovered from him.

During investigation, the petitioner was nominated on the basis of the co-accused’s disclosure statement, which allegedly stated that the heroin had been procured from the petitioner.

The petitioner contended that he was neither named in the FIR nor apprehended at the spot, and that no contraband or incriminating material had been recovered from him.

The State opposed anticipatory bail, submitting that custodial interrogation was necessary for a thorough investigation.

Whether the material collected during investigation disclosed a circumstance warranting the petitioner’s custodial interrogation for the purposes of considering anticipatory bail?

Whether the petitioner should be granted the extraordinary relief of anticipatory bail despite the co-accused’s disclosure statement and the alleged supply-chain involvement in the narcotics offence?

Whether the ultimate admissibility or evidentiary worth of the co-accused’s disclosure statement was required to be conclusively determined at the anticipatory-bail stage?

The Court applied Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, corresponding to Section 438 Cr.P.C., governing anticipatory bail.

It considered the offences under Sections 21 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

The Court also noted the petitioner’s reliance on Section 23 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, concerning the limited evidentiary value of confessional statements made to or while in police custody, but held that the question of admissibility or evidentiary weight was not required to be finally determined at the anticipatory-bail stage.

The governing consideration was whether the investigative material, viewed prima facie, demonstrated the necessity of custodial interrogation, particularly for uncovering the source, supply chain, and wider network involved in organised narcotics trafficking.

The Court declined to conclusively adjudicate the evidentiary value of the co-accused’s disclosure statement, leaving that question open for trial.

Nevertheless, the disclosure statement, read with the surrounding circumstances and the recovery of heroin from the co-accused, constituted relevant investigative material indicating, prima facie, the petitioner’s alleged involvement in supplying heroin; the investigation specifically alleged that 300 grams of heroin had been procured from him.

Given the serious nature of narcotics trafficking and the need to identify the source, persons facilitating distribution, and the broader supply network, the Court held that custodial interrogation was necessary for effective investigation.

The petitioner’s absence from the spot and the lack of recovery from him were therefore insufficient, at that stage, to justify protection from arrest.

The petition was accordingly dismissed.

The Court clarified that its observations were confined to the adjudication of the anticipatory-bail petition and would not prejudice the petitioner’s defence or influence the merits of the case at trial.