A disclosure statement by a co-accused under the NDPS Act is a weak piece of evidence and cannot be the sole basis for denying bail, especially when no recovery was made from the accused and there is no corroborative evidence.

SUMEET GOEL, J. (ORAL)

1. Present petition has been filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.305 dated 28.12.2025, under Sections 21(b), 18(a) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (Section 29 of NDPS Act and Section 223 of BNS, 2023 added later on), registered at Police Station Nehianwala, District Bathinda.

2. 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 60 loose capsules of red colour wrapped in polythene bag, 21 grams of opium in another polythene bag, 20 tobacco packets of different companies, 2 boxes of cigarettes (one was packed and another box having 3 cigarettes) and 27 grams of heroin in opened cigarettes box, allegedly found in the possession of co-accused, namely Varinder Kumar (Jail Warder), and the petitioner has been nominated, in this case, on the disclosure of said co-accused.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the petitioner is in custody since 12.1.2026. 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 Varinder Kumar (Jail Warder). Learned counsel has further iterated that the petitioner has suffered incarceration for about 3 months. Thus, regular bail is prayed for.

4. Learned State counsel has filed status report by way of Pritpal Singh, PPS, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Bhucho, District Bathinda, in Court today. The same be kept on record. Raising submissions in tandem with the said status report, 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 15.4.2026 in the Court, which is taken on record.

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

6. The petitioner was arrested on 12.1.2026 whereinafter investigation was carried out and challan qua him was presented on 11.3.2026. Total 18 prosecution witnesses have been cited, but none has been examined as charges are yet to be framed. The petitioner has been implicated as an accused in the FIR in question solely on the basis of disclosure statement of co-accused- Varinder Kumar (Jail Warder), from whom 60 loose capsules of red colour wrapped in polythene bag, 21 grams of opium in another polythene bag, 20 tobacco packets of different companies, 2 boxes of cigarettes (one was packed and another box having 3 cigarettes) and 27 grams of heroin in opened cigarettes box were 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