Confession of Co-Accused and Lack of Independent Recovery Satisfy Section 37 Conditions for Granting Bail

The petitioners, Samin Miah and Jahir Miah, were accused under Sections 20(b)(ii)(C)/29 of the NDPS Act, 1985

Though not named in the original FIR and not arrested during investigation, they were shown as absconders in the charge-sheet filed on 12.03.2026

After the learned Special Judge issued non-bailable warrants (NBWs) and subsequently recalled them in favor of summons, the petitioners surrendered/appeared before the Court on 12.06.2026

Despite their voluntary appearance, the Special Judge remanded them to judicial custody

The petitioners moved the High Court for bail, challenging their detention after responding to summons and highlighting the lack of evidence against them

1. Whether an accused who appears or surrenders before a Court in response to a summon can be sent to judicial custody without the standard adjudication of bail merits under the NDPS Act.

2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to bail under the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act when the primary evidence against them consists of statements made by co-accused during police interrogation.

The court applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 regarding bail powers

Section 37 of the NDPS Act, 1985, which mandates "twin conditions" for bail in cases involving commercial quantities

Procedural guidelines established in Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI (2021) for Category-C offences (Special Acts), which require compliance with Section 37 even if summons were issued

Kashmira Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1952) on the limited evidentiary value of co-accused confessions

P. Krishna Mohan Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2025) which holds that police confessions are per se inadmissible at the bail stage

The Court first resolved that under the Satender Kumar Antil guidelines, NDPS cases (Category C) do not grant automatic immunity from custody upon appearance via summons; rather, the Court must still satisfy itself regarding the twin conditions of Section 37

The Court noted that the State conceded that no incriminating material existed against the petitioners other than the statements of co-accused recorded during police interrogation

Applying Kashmira Singh and P. Krishna Mohan Reddy, the Court held that such statements are legally inadmissible and cannot form the sole basis for detention

Since there was no evidence of prior involvement in similar offences and the investigation was complete, the Court found "reasonable grounds" to believe the petitioners were not guilty as required by Section 37(1)(b)(ii)

The bail application was allowed, and the petitioners were ordered to be released on a bond of Rs. 1,00,000/- each with one surety ... subject to specific conditions, including non-tampering with witnesses, furnishing mobile numbers, and not leaving the State of Tripura without prior permission