A disclosure statement by a co-accused, without corroborative evidence or recovery from the accused, is insufficient to justify continued incarceration and dilutes the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act for the purpose of granting regular bail.

SUMEET GOEL, J.(Oral)

Present petition has been filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) (Section 439 Cr.P.C.) for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.268 dated 28.11.2025 under Section 22 of the NDPS Act ( Section 29 of NDPS Act added later-on), registered at Police Station Siwan, District Kaithal.

The gravamen of the FIR in question is that the petitioner is an accused of being involved in an FIR pertaining to NDPS Act involving 2500 tablets of Tramadol weighing 452.5 grams with drug money of Rs. 3000/- and the petitioner has been nominated, in this case, on the disclosure of co-accused, namely, Divyanshu @ Vishu.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the petitioner is in custody since 01.12.2025. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act have not been complied with, and thus, the prosecution case suffers from inherent defects. Learned counsel has further iterated that sole basis to array the petitioner as an accused is the disclosure statement of co-accused, namely, Divyanshu @ Vishu. Learned counsel has further iterated that the petitioner has suffered incarceration for more than 04 months. Thus, regular bail is prayed for.

Learned State counsel has opposed the present petition by arguing that the allegations raised against the petitioner are serious in nature and, thus, he does not deserve the concession of the regular bail. Learned State counsel seeks to place on record custody certificate dated 04.04.2026 in the Court, which is taken on record.

I have heard counsel for the rival parties and have gone through the available records of the case.

The petitioner was arrested on 01.12.2025 whereafter investigation was carried out but Challan has still not been presented against him till date. The petitioner has been implicated as an accused in the FIR in question solely on the basis of disclosure statement of co-accused-Divyanshu @ Vishu, from whom 2500 tablets of Tramadol weighing 452.5 grams was allegedly recovered. As per the prosecution version, there is no other material available to connect the petitioner with the contraband except for the said disclosure statement. It is pertinent to note that such disclosure statements, in the absence of corroborative evidence hold limited evidentiary value and cannot be sole basis for implicating the petitioner. The reliance on this unsubstantiated statement raises serious doubts about the fairness and objectivity of the investigation. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was not present at the spot. The veracity and weightage required to be attached to the disclosure statement made by the co-accused will be fully tested at the time of trial. The rival contentions raised at Bar give rise to debatable issues, which shall be ratiocinated upon during the course of trial. This Court does not deem it appropriate to delve deep into these rival contentions, at this stage, lest it may prejudice the trial. Nothing tangible has been brought forward to indicate the likelihood of the petitioner absconding from the process of justice or interfering with the prosecution evidence.

As per custody certificate dated 04.04.2026 filed by the learned State counsel, the petitioner has already suffered incarceration for a period of 04 months and 01 day. Further, as per the said custody certificate the petitioner is stated to be involved in another case/FIR. However, this factum cannot be a ground sufficient by itself, to decline the concession of regular bail to the petitioner in the FIR in question when a case is made out for grant of regular bail qua the FIR in question by ratiocinating upon the facts/circumstances of the said FIR. Reliance in this regard can be placed upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi v. State of U.P. and another , 2012 (1) RCR (Criminal) 586; a Division Bench judgment