Bail Granted Where Accused Implicated Solely on Co-Accused’s Statement Without Corroborating Material or Money Trail

On September 30, 2025, police discovered an abandoned Fortuner vehicle stuck in mud containing 223 kg of poppy straw.

Co-accused Mangilal was arrested and alleged in a disclosure statement that the applicant, Hansraj, was an associate involved in the transportation.

Hansraj was arrested on May 3, 2026, and remained in judicial custody from May 30, 2026.

No narcotics were recovered directly from his possession, and the prosecution failed to provide Call Detail Reports (CDR) or a money trail linking him to the crime.

The applicant filed this first bail application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023.

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail despite the statutory bars under Section 37 of the NDPS Act when the primary evidence is a co-accused's confession.

2. Whether the lack of incriminating material (CDR, money trail, or conscious possession) warrants the exercise of judicial discretion for release.

Section 37(1)(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, which imposes stringent conditions for bail involving commercial quantities.

The precedents of Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu (2021) and Deepak Bhai v. State of Gujarat (2020), which established that self-incriminating statements made to police officers while in custody are inadmissible as evidence.

Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

The Court observed that the prosecution's case against the applicant rested solely on the statement of a co-accused, which lacks evidentiary value under the Tofan Singh doctrine.

It noted that no "incriminating material, much less narcotic contraband," was seized from the "active, immediate and conscious possession" of the applicant.

The Court found that since there was no corroborative physical or digital evidence—such as a money trail or CDR—the "interdict" or prohibition contained in Section 37(1)(b) of the NDPS Act did not operate against the applicant.

The Court assessed the applicant's socio-economic status as a 24-year-old labourer with no prior criminal antecedents, concluding there was no risk of recidivism or fleeing from justice.

It held that the contentions regarding the lack of evidence had prima facie merit and directed the applicant's release upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 75,000 with one surety of the same amount, subject to conditions including mandatory attendance at hearings and no commission of similar offences.