1. Bail application under Section 483 BNS for alleged offences under Sections 8/15, 29 NDPS Act, based solely on co-accused's disclosure statement. (Para 1 , 2 , 4 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Raj) 693
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
FARJAND ALI, J.
Jagdish Mongiya, S/o Shri Jairam - Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp - Respondent
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous II Bail Application No. 5979 of 2025
Decided On : 08-01-2026
Important Points
Bail under the NDPS Act is permissible if the implication is based solely on uncorroborated disclosure statements of co-accused without recovery from the accused, as Section 37's embargo requires only a prima facie determination of innocence to prevent punitive detention.
Subject
Criminal Law - Narcotics / Bail
Act Referred
Headnote
(A) NDPS Act, 1988 - Sections 29 and 37 - Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 27 - BNNS - Section 483 - IPC - Sections 107 and 120-B - Bail application - Implication based on co-accused disclosure statement - No recovery from accused - Admissibility of disclosure statements in police custody - Only that portion of a statement which leads to the discovery of a fact is admissible under Section 27 of the Evidence Act; in the absence of any subsequent recovery or independent corroborative evidence, such statements have limited evidentiary value and cannot form the sole basis for continued detention (Paras 5, 7, 8, 9).
(B) NDPS Act, 1988 - Section 29 - Abetment and Criminal Conspiracy - Mere mention of an offence under Section 29 in the charge-sheet, without accompanying substantive material showing involvement, participation, or a meeting of minds, is insufficient to justify the prolonged incarceration of an accused (Paras 10, 13).
(C) NDPS Act, 1988 - Section 37 - Interpretation of “not guilty” for grant of bail - The statutory conditions for bail under Section 37 must be interpreted reasonably to avoid punitive or unsanctioned preventive detention; a prima facie determination of the material on record is sufficient to satisfy the court that the accused is not guilty for the limited purpose of granting bail (Para 15).
Facts of the case:
An accused was arrested for offences under the NDPS Act and has been incarcerated for nearly two years. No contraband was recovered from the accused, and the recovery was effected only from a co-accused. The implication of the accused was based solely on a disclosure statement made by the co-accused while in police custody. The charge-sheet has been filed, and no further recoveries are pending from the accused.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the prosecution's case against the accused was founded on suspicion rather than cogent material. The disclosure statement by the co-accused was inconsistent and uncorroborated, failing to lead to any new discovery of facts. Furthermore, there was no evidence of communication, meetings, or any act of assistance by the accused that could establish abetment or criminal conspiracy.
Issues: Whether an accused can be denied bail under the stringent conditions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act when the implication is based exclusively on an uncorroborated disclosure statement of a co-accused and no incriminating material was recovered from the accused.
Ratio Decidendi: A confession in police custody is admissible only to the extent it leads to a discovery under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. Without such discovery or corroboration, it cannot sustain detention. Charges of conspiracy or abetment under Section 29 of the NDPS Act require prima facie evidence of an agreement or instigation. The embargo in Section 37 must be read within constitutional parameters to ensure liberty is not encroached upon when the material on record is insufficient.
Result: Bail application allowed.
(B) NDPS Act, 1988 - Section 29 - Abetment and Criminal Conspiracy - Mere mention of an offence under Section 29 in the charge-sheet, without accompanying substantive material showing involvement, participation, or a meeting of minds, is insufficient to justify the prolonged incarceration of an accused (Paras 10, 13).
(C) NDPS Act, 1988 - Section 37 - Interpretation of “not guilty” for grant of bail - The statutory conditions for bail under Section 37 must be interpreted reasonably to avoid punitive or unsanctioned preventive detention; a prima facie determination of the material on record is sufficient to satisfy the court that the accused is not guilty for the limited purpose of granting bail (Para 15).
Facts of the case:
An accused was arrested for offences under the NDPS Act and has been incarcerated for nearly two years. No contraband was recovered from the accused, and the recovery was effected only from a co-accused. The implication of the accused was based solely on a disclosure statement made by the co-accused while in police custody. The charge-sheet has been filed, and no further recoveries are pending from the accused.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the prosecution's case against the accused was founded on suspicion rather than cogent material. The disclosure statement by the co-accused was inconsistent and uncorroborated, failing to lead to any new discovery of facts. Furthermore, there was no evidence of communication, meetings, or any act of assistance by the accused that could establish abetment or criminal conspiracy.
Issues: Whether an accused can be denied bail under the stringent conditions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act when the implication is based exclusively on an uncorroborated disclosure statement of a co-accused and no incriminating material was recovered from the accused.
Ratio Decidendi: A confession in police custody is admissible only to the extent it leads to a discovery under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. Without such discovery or corroboration, it cannot sustain detention. Charges of conspiracy or abetment under Section 29 of the NDPS Act require prima facie evidence of an agreement or instigation. The embargo in Section 37 must be read within constitutional parameters to ensure liberty is not encroached upon when the material on record is insufficient.
Result: Bail application allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- crime and sentencing
- practice and procedure
Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Ravindra Acharya
For the Respondent: Mr. Shriram Choudhary, AGA
For the Petitioner: Mr. Ravindra Acharya
For the Respondent: Mr. Shriram Choudhary, AGA
Table of Contents
2. Petitioner argues no case made out, only co-accused's statement; prosecution opposes, citing strict Section 37 NDPS Act conditions. (Para 2 , 3 )
3. Court finds no contraband or corroboration; disclosure statement uncorroborated and doubtful; prolonged detention unjustified; trial likely lengthy. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 13 , 14 )
4. Section 27 Evidence Act applies only to discovery; unsupported disclosure cannot sustain bail denial; Section 37 requires prima facie guilt. (Para 8 , 9 , 12 , 14 , 15 )
5. Bail application allowed; petitioner to be released on personal bond of Rs.50,000 with two sureties of Rs.25,000 each. (Para 16 )
6. Can a co-accused's disclosure statement alone justify denial of bail under the NDPS Act?
No. Under Section 27 Evidence Act, only the part leading to discovery is admissible. Without corroborative material or recovery, the disclosure cannot form a sufficient foundation for continued detention or prosecution. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 9 )
7. What is the scope of Section 27 of the Evidence Act in relation to disclosure statements?
Only components of a disclosure statement that are the immediate cause of discovery of a fact are legal evidence; rest must be excised and rejected. No new discovery means statement lacks evidentiary value. (Para 8 , 9 )
8. How should Section 37 of the NDPS Act be interpreted for bail purposes?
Section 37 should not render bail impossible. Courts must be reasonably satisfied on a prima facie look at the material that the accused is not guilty and unlikely to commit offence while on bail. (Para 15 )
9. What constitutes abetment or criminal conspiracy under Section 29 NDPS Act?
Abetment requires instigation, conspiracy, or intentional aiding; criminal conspiracy requires agreement between two or more persons. Mere charge-sheet assertion without material showing involvement is insufficient to deny bail. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 )
ORDER :
FARJAND ALI, J.
1. The jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked by way of filing an application under Section 483 of the BNS at the instance of accused-petitioner. The requisite details of the matter are tabulated herein below:
| S.No. | Particulars of the Case | |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | FIR Number: | 246/2022 |
| 2 | Concerned Police Station: | Kotwali |
| 3 | District: | Sirohi |
| 4 | Offences alleged in the FIR: | Under Sections 8/15 and 29 of the NDPS Act |
| 5 | Offences added, if any: | - |
| 6 | Date of passing of impugned: | - |
2. It is contended on behalf of the accused-petitioner that no case for the alleged offences is made out against the petitioner and he has been made an accused based on conjectures and surmises and on the basis of the statement made by the co- order accused in custody. There are no factors at play in the case at hand that may work against grant of bail to him and his further incarceration is not warranted. On these grounds, prays that the petitioner may be granted indulgence of bail.
3. Contrary to the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor opposes the bail application and submits that the present case is not fit for enlargement of accused on bail.
4. I have considered the submissions made by both the parties and have perused the material available on record. Having given thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions and upon a prima facie evaluation of the material placed on record, this Court finds that the petitioner has remained behind the bars for a continuous period of about two years. The prosecution case, insofar as it concerns the petitioner, appears to be founded more on suspicion than on any cogent or substantive material. It is an admitted position that no contraband was recovered from the possession or at the instance of the petitioner and that the alleged recovery has been effected only from the co-accused Malaram. The implication of the petitioner emanates solely from the disclosure statement of the said co-accused Malaram recorded while in police custody, without there being any independent material or circumstantial evidence to corroborate the same. The charge-sheet having already been filed and no further recovery being stated to be pending from the petitioner, his continued custodial detention does not appear to be warranted for the purposes of investigation. A bare perusal of the FIR and the material collected during investigation does not prima facie disclose any specific role, overt act or direct participation attributable to the petitioner in the alleged offence. In such circumstances, the prolonged incarceration of the petitioner for nearly two years, particularly when the trial is likely to take considerable time to conclude, would not serve any useful purpose, especially in the absence of material to suggest that he would evade the process of law or influence the prosecution witnesses. It is in this factual and legal backdrop that the evidentiary worth of the disclosure statement relied upon by the prosecution requires closer judicial scrutiny.
5. It is a well-settled proposition that a confessional or disclosure statement made in police custody has limited evidentiary value under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, and only that portion of the statement which leads to the discovery of a fact can be admissible. In the instant case, there is no material to suggest that any incriminating recovery or discovery was effected pursuant to the second disclosure allegedly implicating the petitioner. The prosecution has also failed to establish any independent corroborative evidence linking the petitioner to the alleged transaction or recovery.
6. In this backdrop, the subsequent disclosure, being inconsistent and uncorroborated, appears highly doubtful and cannot, by itself, constitute a sufficient legal foundation for continued detention or prosecution of the petitioner. The variance between the two disclosures, particularly when recorded in quick succession, prima facie reflects an attempt at embellishment or af
