P&H HC Denies Anticipatory Bail To Man Named In Co-Accused’s Disclosure, Citing 3 Other Pending NDPS Cases

Amit Kumar was apprehended with 451.83 grams of heroin.

During investigation, he named the petitioner, Sahil, alleging that the contraband had been purchased through Sahil and co-accused Rohit @ Jinu for ₹7,00,000; Sahil was nominated on the basis of that disclosure statement.

Sahil sought anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, arguing that there was no corroborative evidence against him.

The State opposed the petition, citing three other pending NDPS cases against him.

The Court recorded those cases as under trial.

Section 482 BNSS, 2023 (the provision invoked for anticipatory bail) governs the application for pre-arrest bail.

The Court relied on State of Haryana v. Samarth Kumar, which held that anticipatory bail is generally not warranted in an NDPS case merely because the accused was implicated through a co-accused’s disclosure statement, while leaving the relevance of Tofan Singh to be considered at the regular-bail stage or after trial.

It also considered Vijay Singh v. State of Haryana, where anticipatory bail was granted despite the petitioner being named by a co-accused and having another NDPS case in which he was on bail, and Vikrant Singh v. State of Punjab, concerning the absence of corroborative material beyond a disclosure statement and call details.

The Court further relied on Soni Singh @ Chamkaur Sahib and Ranjit Singh for the principle that multiple NDPS cases and criminal antecedents may weigh against bail; it noted that Section 37’s restrictions are additional to the ordinary bail considerations and that custodial interrogation may be necessary in such circumstances.

The petitioner’s nomination rested on the co-accused’s disclosure statement, but the Court considered that circumstance alongside—not in isolation from—the petitioner’s three other pending NDPS cases.

It found that the existence of multiple cases made it unlikely that the petitioner had been implicated arbitrarily and weighed against concluding that he was unlikely to commit a further offence.

The Court distinguished the circumstances warranting anticipatory bail in Vijay Singh and Vikrant Singh, and concluded that the petitioner’s alleged role in the heroin supply chain required custodial interrogation to verify his involvement, identify the source and origin of the contraband, and complete the investigation.

Any pending applications were also disposed of.