With No Witnesses Examined, P&H HC Grants Regular Bail To 2.6-Kg Heroin Case Accused Linked Only By Co-Accused’s Disclosure After 5 Months In Custody

The petitioner sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in an FIR registered under Sections 21, 23 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, concerning recovery of 2 kg 600 g of heroin.

Arrested on 14 May 2026, he was implicated on the basis of a co-accused’s disclosure statement; the prosecution identified no other material connecting him to the contraband, and he was not present at the recovery spot.

The challan had been presented, but none of the 28 prosecution witnesses had been examined. At the time of decision, he had undergone five months and 18 days of custody.

The State opposed bail, invoking the seriousness of the allegations and 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 specified cases, including that the court have reasonable grounds to believe the accused is not guilty and is not likely to commit an offence while on bail.

The Court relied on Jaswinder Singh alias Kala v. State of Punjab for the proposition that prolonged undertrial detention and a procrastinating trial may engage Article 21 and affect the application of Section 37’s rigours; the assessment remains dependent on the circumstances of each case.

It also relied on Anshul Sardana v. State of Punjab and the authorities discussed there, including Toofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu, for the principle that a co-accused’s disclosure statement, without corroborative evidence, has limited evidentiary value and cannot alone provide a sound basis for implicating an accused.

The Court considered that the petitioner’s alleged connection to the contraband rested solely on a co-accused’s disclosure statement, with no recovery from the petitioner and no other prosecution material linking him to the offence; the admissibility and weight of that statement remained matters for trial.

It also noted that the petitioner was not present at the spot, had spent five months and 18 days in custody, and faced a trial likely to take considerable time, with none of the 28 witnesses yet examined.

In these circumstances, and absent material indicating a risk of absconding or interference with evidence, the Court held that further detention was not warranted and that the rigours of Section 37 stood diluted in light of Article 21.

The Court imposed conditions including non-interference with evidence, regular attendance, surrender of any passport, restrictions on changing his cellphone number, and monthly affidavits confirming that he had not been involved in any offence after release; the State could seek cancellation of bail for breach of conditions.

The Court clarified that its observations would not affect the merits of the case.