1. Bail application under Section 483 of BNS for alleged offences under NDPS Act based on co-accused disclosure statement. (Para 1 , 2 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Raj) 694
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
FARJAND ALI, J.
Tufan S/o Rodi Lal Banjara - Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp - Respondent
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 11041 of 2025
Decided On : 08-01-2026
Important Points
A co-accused's disclosure statement without independent corroboration or discovery of facts under Section 27 of the Evidence Act is insufficient to justify continued detention or satisfy the embargo under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, especially when no contraband was recovered from the accused.
Subject
Criminal Law - NDPS Act
Act Referred
Headnote
(A) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Sections 29 and 37 - Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 27 - IPC - Sections 107 and 120-B - Bail application - Accused implicated solely on the basis of a co-accused's statement without any recovery of contraband - A confessional or disclosure statement made in police custody has limited evidentiary value, and only that portion leading to the discovery of a fact is admissible (Paras 4, 5) - Disclosure without corroborative evidence or discovery cannot constitute a sufficient legal foundation for continued detention (Paras 6, 7, 9).
(B) NDPS Act - Section 29 - Abetment and Criminal Conspiracy - To invoke conspiracy, there must be an agreement of mind between two or more people to commit an illegal act with a common intention - Mere mention of the section in the charge-sheet without supporting material showing involvement or participation is insufficient to justify incarceration (Paras 10, 12, 13).
(C) NDPS Act - Section 37 - Conditions for grant of bail - The provision cannot be construed to render the grant of bail impossible - The requirement that the court be satisfied the accused is "not guilty" should be interpreted as a prima facie determination based on the material on record (Para 15).
Facts of the case:
The petitioner was accused under Sections 8/15 and 29 of the NDPS Act. The implication was based solely on the disclosure statement of a co-accused. No contraband was recovered from the petitioner's possession, and no evidence of a nexus between the petitioner and the contraband or the primary accused, such as call records or meetings, was present on record. The charge-sheet had been filed, and a co-accused had already been granted bail.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the disclosure statement of the co-accused lacked corroboration and did not lead to any discovery under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. Furthermore, there was no evidence to support charges of abetment or conspiracy. The court noted that the trial was progressing slowly and the petitioner had no criminal antecedents.
Issues: Whether a disclosure statement by a co-accused, without any subsequent recovery or corroborative evidence, is sufficient to justify continued detention under the NDPS Act and whether the embargo under Section 37 should apply in such circumstances.
Ratio Decidendi: Information provided under Section 27 of the Evidence Act is only admissible to the extent it leads to a discovery; without such discovery or independent corroboration, it cannot sustain detention. For charges under Section 29 of the NDPS Act, there must be tangible evidence of conspiracy or abetment beyond a mere statement. Section 37 of the NDPS Act requires a prima facie assessment of innocence, which is met when the prosecution fails to provide corroborative evidence for the accused's involvement.
Result: Bail application allowed.
(B) NDPS Act - Section 29 - Abetment and Criminal Conspiracy - To invoke conspiracy, there must be an agreement of mind between two or more people to commit an illegal act with a common intention - Mere mention of the section in the charge-sheet without supporting material showing involvement or participation is insufficient to justify incarceration (Paras 10, 12, 13).
(C) NDPS Act - Section 37 - Conditions for grant of bail - The provision cannot be construed to render the grant of bail impossible - The requirement that the court be satisfied the accused is "not guilty" should be interpreted as a prima facie determination based on the material on record (Para 15).
Facts of the case:
The petitioner was accused under Sections 8/15 and 29 of the NDPS Act. The implication was based solely on the disclosure statement of a co-accused. No contraband was recovered from the petitioner's possession, and no evidence of a nexus between the petitioner and the contraband or the primary accused, such as call records or meetings, was present on record. The charge-sheet had been filed, and a co-accused had already been granted bail.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the disclosure statement of the co-accused lacked corroboration and did not lead to any discovery under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. Furthermore, there was no evidence to support charges of abetment or conspiracy. The court noted that the trial was progressing slowly and the petitioner had no criminal antecedents.
Issues: Whether a disclosure statement by a co-accused, without any subsequent recovery or corroborative evidence, is sufficient to justify continued detention under the NDPS Act and whether the embargo under Section 37 should apply in such circumstances.
Ratio Decidendi: Information provided under Section 27 of the Evidence Act is only admissible to the extent it leads to a discovery; without such discovery or independent corroboration, it cannot sustain detention. For charges under Section 29 of the NDPS Act, there must be tangible evidence of conspiracy or abetment beyond a mere statement. Section 37 of the NDPS Act requires a prima facie assessment of innocence, which is met when the prosecution fails to provide corroborative evidence for the accused's involvement.
Result: Bail application allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Bhagirath Ray Bishnoi, AGA
For the Respondent: Mr. Surendra Bishnoi, AGA
For the Petitioner: Mr. Bhagirath Ray Bishnoi, AGA
For the Respondent: Mr. Surendra Bishnoi, AGA
Table of Contents
2. Petitioner argues no case made out, implicated solely on co-accused statement; prosecution opposes bail citing offence gravity. (Para 2 , 3 )
3. No recovery from petitioner; disclosure statement uncorroborated and doubtful; charge-sheet filed; co-accused already granted bail. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 13 , 14 )
4. Section 27 Evidence Act admits only information leading to discovery; uncorroborated co-accused statement cannot justify continued detention. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 )
5. Bail granted upon furnishing personal bond of Rs.50,000 with two sureties of Rs.25,000 each. (Para 16 )
6. What is the evidentiary value of a co-accused's disclosure statement under Section 27 of the Evidence Act?
Only that portion leading to discovery of a fact is admissible; uncorroborated subsequent disclosure naming another accused has limited evidentiary worth. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 )
7. Does the embargo under Section 37 of NDPS Act bar bail when accused is implicated solely on co-accused's statement?
No; the court can form a prima facie tentative opinion that the accused is not guilty, and the embargo does not render bail impossible. (Para 14 , 15 )
8. What material is required to charge a person under Section 29 of NDPS Act for abetment or criminal conspiracy?
There must be evidence of instigation, intentional aid, or agreement; mere mention in charge-sheet without supporting material 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 aretabulated herein below:
| S.No. | Particulars of the Case | |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | FIR Number | 280/2024 |
| 2 | Concerned Police Station | Sadar |
| 3 | District | Chittorgarh |
| 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 order | 04.08.2025 |
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-(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. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. At the outset, it is noticed that the petitioner has been implicated solely on the basis of the statement of the co-accused and no recovery of any contraband has been effected from his possession. Prima facie, there is no material on record to establish any nexus of the petitioner either with the ownership of the alleged contraband or with the persons who are stated to be connected therewith. The investigation has already culminated into filing of the charge-sheet and, therefore, the possibility of the petitioner influencing the investigation stands substantially ruled out. It is also an admitted position that the co- accused, namely Gajraj Singh @ Gajendra Singh, has been enlarged on bail and the case of the present petitioner does not stand on a footing worse than that of the said co-accused. The trial is proceeding at a snail’s pace and there is nothing on record to suggest that the petitioner has any criminal antecedents. In these circumstances, the continued incarceration of the petitioner, who is sought to be linked with the alleged offence only on the basis of the disclosure statement of the co-accused, prima facie appears to be unwarranted, which necessitates an examination of the evidentiary worth of such disclosure in the light of the settled principles governing Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act.
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 afterthought, thereby eroding the evidentiary sanctity of the second statement to the extent it seeks to involve the petitioner.
7. If it is an information under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, something is required to be recovered or discovered in pursuance of the information supplied under Section 27 of the Evidence Act which distinctly relates to the commission of the crime. It is the admitted case of prosecution that in pursuance of the i
