Man Linked To 52-Kg Poppy-Husk Seizure Only By Co-Accused’s Disclosure Gets Bail After 5 Months With No Witness Examined: P&H HC

The petitioner sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in an FIR registered under Sections 15(c) and 27A of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, concerning the recovery of 52 kg 320 grams of poppy-husk

He had been in custody since May 30, 2026; the challan was filed on September 16, 2026, and none of the 26 cited prosecution witnesses had been examined by the date of decision

The prosecution case against him rested solely on a co-accused’s disclosure statement; he was not present at the recovery site, and no other material was identified as connecting him to the contraband

The State opposed bail, relying on the seriousness of the allegations and the restrictions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act

Section 483 of the BNSS empowers the High Court to grant regular bail; Section 37 of the NDPS Act imposes twin conditions for bail in the specified NDPS offences, in addition to the ordinary bail parameters.

The Court relied on Anshul Sardana v. State of Punjab, which, drawing on Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu and other Supreme Court authorities, treated a co-accused’s disclosure statement as weak evidence that cannot, by itself, form the basis for conviction, while leaving its final admissibility and evidentiary weight to the trial court.

It also relied on Jaswinder Singh alias Kala v. State of Punjab for the proposition that the rigours of Section 37 may yield where prolonged undertrial incarceration and delay engage Article 21, provided the delay is not attributable to the accused; the application of Section 37 depends on the facts and judicial assessment in each case.

The Court considered that the petitioner had spent five months and two days in custody, the trial was likely to take considerable time, and no prosecution witness had yet been examined.

It also noted that the petitioner was implicated solely through a co-accused’s disclosure statement, was not present at the recovery, and was not shown to have any other FIR or material connecting him to the contraband.

Without finally deciding the statement’s evidentiary value—which was for the trial court—the Court found the prosecution case and the rival contentions debatable at the bail stage.

Given the custody and anticipated delay, it held that further detention was not warranted and that the Section 37 rigour stood diluted in light of Article 21.

The Court clarified that its observations would not be treated as an opinion on the merits of the case.