Implication of an accused solely based on the disclosure statement of a co-accused, without any corroborative evidence or recovery, dilutes the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, justifying the grant of regular bail to protect personal liberty.

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.397 dated 14.9.2024, under Sections 21(B) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, registered at Police Station Gandhi Nagar, Yamuna Nagar.

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 115.05 grams of heroin allegedly found in the possession of co-accused, namely Mohram Alia @ Mohseen, 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 4.12.2025 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 Mohram Alia @ Mohseen. Learned counsel has further iterated that the petitioner has suffered incarceration for more than 4 months. Thus, regular bail is prayed for.

4. 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 10.4.2026 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 4.12.2025 whereinafter investigation was carried out and challan qua him was presented on 8.1.2026. Total 24 prosecution witnesses have been cited, but only 01 has been examined 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- Mohram Alia @ Mohseen, from whom 115.05 grams of heroin 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.

6.1. At this juncture, it would be apposite to refer to a judgment passed by this Court in Anshul Sardana versus State of Punjab , passed in CRM-M-65094-2024 (2025: PHHC:004198), wherein, after relying upon the ratio decidendi of the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Tofan Singh versus State of Tamil Nadu , AIR 2020 Supreme Court 5592; Smt. Najmunisha, Abdul Hamid Chandmiya @ Ladoo Bapu versus State of Gujrat, Narcotics Control Bureau , 2024 INSC 290; State by (NCB) Bengaluru vs. Pallulabid Ahmad Arimutta & Anr.’, 2022 (1) RCR (Criminal) 762; and Vijay Singh vs. The State of Haryana , bearing Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.(s) 1266/2023, decided on 17.05.2023, has he