A disclosure statement by a co-accused, without corroborating evidence or recovery, is insufficient to deny anticipatory bail under the NDPS Act, as such statements made to police officers are inadmissible in evidence.

RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL, J. (ORAL)

1. Through the instant petition filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (For short “BNSS”), the petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in case FIR No.118 dated 16.07.2025 registered at Police Station Kamboj, District Amritsar Rural under Sections 21, 29, 25 of NDPS Act, 1985.

2. On 25.09.2025, the following order was passed by the co-ordinate bench of this Court: -

“Prayer in this petition under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023 is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.118 dated 16.07.2025 registered at Police Station Kamboj, District Amritsar Rural under Sections 21, 29, 25 of NDPS Act, 1985. Notice of motion. Mr. G.S. Dhaliwal, AAG, Punjab, has appeared and accepts notice on behalf of the State. Both the parties have been heard and material collected by the police during investigation has been perused. As per prosecution case, two persons namely Vishal Singh @ Galu and Arshdeep Singh @ Kalu were apprehended by the police while patrolling in the area of Fatehgarh near Pul Nehar, Shukarchak. On search, 10 grams of heroin was recovered from the possession of co-accused Vishal Singh @ Galu and 20 grams of heroin from the possession of co-accused Arshdeep Singh @ Kalu. On interrogation, co-accused Arshdeep Singh @ Kalu disclosed the name of the petitioner as the person, who had supplied the contraband to them. Apprehending arrest, the petitioner applied for anticipatory bail, which has been dismissed by the trial Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. The disclosure statement of co-accused Arshdeep Singh @ Kalu, whereby he has been nominated as an accused is inadmissible in evidence and cannot be looked into. There is no other material to connect the petitioner with the alleged offence and disclosure statement alone cannot be made the basis to deny the benefit of anticipatory bail. Learned counsel next contended that petitioner is ready to join the investigation and he will abide by the conditions that may be imposed by the Court and benefit of anticipatory bail be extended in his favour. In support of her contentions, learned counsel has cited the Judgment reported as Law Finder Doc.id# 2687409, 2025:NCPHHC:2121 titled as “ Sahil Joshi Vs. State of Punjab ” and order dated 20.08.2025 passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No.3640/2025 @ SLP (Crl) No.9190/2025 titled as ‘ Jugraj Singh Vs. State of Punjab ’. Learned counsel also placed on file the order dated 03.04.2025 passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in CRM-M-18403-2025 in the aforesaid case vide which bail application of aforesaid Jugraj Singh was rejected. On the other hand, learned State counsel has opposed the prayer and argued that the name of the petitioner has emerged during investigation and disclosure statement of co-accused Arshdeep Singh @ Kalu has pointed towards his role in the present offence indicating his involvement in the illicit drug network and as such, his custodial interrogation is essential to trace the source from where the contraband was arranged and other links of supply and petitioner does not deserve anticipatory bail. Admittedly, no recovery has been effected from the petitioner and his name has cropped up in the disclosure statement of co-accused Arshdeep Singh @ Kalu. At this stage, there is no other material against the petitioner except disclosure statement of co-accuse