Confessional statements recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act are inadmissible as evidence, and bail may be granted notwithstanding Section 37 if the accused has no criminal record and the trial is delayed, consistent with the constitutional right to a speedy trial.

Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)

Bail petitioner namely Lobhi Ram, who is behind the bars since 20.5.2026, has approached this Court in the instant proceedings filed undger Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, for grant of regular bail in case FIR No.19 of 2026, dated 1.3.2026, under Sections 20 and 29 of the NDPS Act, registered at PS Chowari, District Chamba, H.P.

Pursuant to order dated 15.5.2026, respondent-State has filed the status report and ASI Sunil Kumar, has come present with record. Record perused and returned.

Close scrutiny of status report/record reveals that that on 1.3.2026, police patrolling party present near Lahru received secret information at 5:30pm that two boys standing near Trimath Chowk are indulging in illegal trade of narcotics and they may be in possession of huge quantity of contraband. On the basis of afore information, police proceeded towards link road and found that two persons namely Aman and Nikhil Tandon were standing there with one rucksack bag. After having associated independent witnessres, police effected personal search of the afore persons as well as of the rucksack bag and allegedly recovered 1.073 kgs of charas. Since noo plausible explanation ever came to be rendered on record qua the poCssession of the aforesaid quantity of contraband by the above named persons, police after completion of necessary codal formalitiehs, lodged FIR, as detailed herein above and arrested them and since then, they are behind bars. During investigation, above named persons allegedly disclosed to the police that person name Priyanjal @ Piyush had deposited sum of Rs. 40,000/- in the bank account of present bail petitioner, who thereafter supplied the charas allegedly recovered from them. In the afore background, petitioner herein also came to be named in the FIR and he was arrested on 20.5.2026. Since investigation in the case is complete and nothing remains to be recovered from the bail petitioner, he has approached this court in the instant proceedings for grant o.f regular bail.

Mr. N.K. Thakur, learned Senior counsel, duly assisted by Mr. Karan Vir Singh, Advocate, appearing for the petitioner, vehemently argued that bail petitioner has been falsely implicated because nothing has been recovered from his conscious possession. He submitted that petitioner has been named in the FIR merely on th e basis of statement made by the co- accused, which is not admissiblre under law. He states that mere transfer of money, if any, by the co-accused in the bank account of the petitioner, may not be sufficient too conclude the guilt of the petitioner against whom, otherwise no caseC in past stands registered under the Act. In support of his aforesaid submissions, he placed reliance upon Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu (2021) 4 SCC 1.

Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, while fairly admitting factum with regard to filing of challan in the competent court of law, contends that though nothing remains to be recovered from the bail petitioner, but keeping in view the gravity of offence alleged to have been committed by him, he does not deserve any leniency. While making this court peruse the record, learned Additional Advocate General, submits that there is overwhelming evidence adduced on record suggestive of the fact that bail petitioner is a drug peddler and contraband recov.ered from the conscious possession of the co-accused was actually supplied by the petitioner. He states that record with regard to financial transactions placed on record virtually reveals that co-accused had transferred Rs. 40,000/- in the bank account of the petitioner and thereafter, Rs. 30,000/- was also paid to him by co-accused Aman for supply of contraband. He states that though in past, no case st ands registered against the petitioner, but having taken note of the quarntity of contraband supplied by him to the co-accused, this Court can well presume that bail petitioner is a drug peddle