Named Only In Co-Accused’s Disclosure In 1.033-Kg Heroin Case, Man Gets Bail After 5 Months: P&H HC

The petitioner sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in an NDPS case involving 1 kg 33 grams of heroin allegedly recovered from co-accused Kulwant Singh and Anmol Singh.

The petitioner was not present at the recovery site and was implicated solely on the basis of Kulwant Singh’s disclosure statement; the prosecution identified no other material connecting him to the contraband.

Arrested on 11 May 2026, the petitioner had been in custody for five months and fifteen days by 29 October 2026.

The challan had been presented on 20 June 2026, citing 17 prosecution witnesses, none of whom had been examined by the date of the order.

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

Section 483 of the BNSS empowers the Court to grant regular bail, subject to applicable statutory restrictions.

Section 37 of the NDPS Act imposes twin conditions for bail in specified cases, including commercial-quantity offences; the judgment, relying on Jaswinder Singh alias Kala v. State of Punjab, stated that the conditions are cumulative, while also recognising that the Section 37 rigours may yield where prolonged undertrial custody and trial delay engage Article 21, provided the delay is not attributable to the accused.

The Court also relied on Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu and other cited authorities for the principle that a co-accused’s confession or disclosure statement, without corroborative material, is a weak basis for implication and cannot alone sustain conviction; its ultimate evidentiary value is for trial.

Anshul Sardana v. State of Punjab was cited for the need, at the bail stage, to consider the nature of the allegations, the evidence linking the accused to the offence, and the role attributed to the accused.

The Court further held, relying on cited authorities, that involvement in other cases is not by itself sufficient to deny bail in the case before it.

The Court considered that the petitioner had not been present at the recovery and that the prosecution identified no evidence connecting him to the contraband apart from the co-accused’s disclosure statement.

It treated the statement’s evidentiary weight as a matter for trial and declined to determine the disputed merits at the bail stage.

The Court also noted the petitioner’s custody, the filing of the challan, and that none of the 17 cited witnesses had yet been examined; it found no tangible indication that he would abscond or interfere with the evidence.

Although the State relied on Section 37, the Court applied the principles discussed in Jaswinder Singh and concluded that, in the circumstances, the Section 37 rigour stood diluted and further detention as an undertrial was unwarranted.

The order imposed conditions including non-interference with evidence, regular attendance, no further offending, deposit of any passport, provision and maintenance of a cellphone number, and monthly affidavits confirming no involvement in further offences; the State may seek cancellation of bail in case of breach.

The Court clarified that its observations were not an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.