Disclosure statements under Section 67 of the NDPS Act are inadmissible unless corroborated by independent material; consequently, the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act are not attracted if no contraband is recovered from the accused.

Manisha Batra, J. (Oral).

The present petition has been filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) by the petitioner seeking grant of regular bail in case bearing FIR No.109 dated 06.08.2025 registered under Sections 15(c) of the NDPS Act (offences under Sections 27 and 29 of the NDPS Act were added subsequently) at Police Station Bahav Wala, District Fazilka.

2. As per the allegations, on 06.08.2025, a canter vehicle bearing registration No. PB-13-BR-3723 was stopped at the barrier pass Rajpura during routine checking. The driver of the vehicle got perplexed. On asking, he disclosed his name as Harbans Singh @ Happy. On the basis of suspicion, a checking was conducted and 51 kgs and 406 grams of poppy husk was recovered from the vehicle which was taken into possession by the police along with vehicle. The above named accused was formally arrested and his dope test was conducted, which was found to be positive. He was interrogated and disclosed that the recovered drugs belonged to accused Kundan Mal Menariya and the present petitioner and they had kept the contraband in his vehicle and he was bringing the same to Punjab. Both the above named persons were nominated as accused. Offence under Section 29 of the NDPS Act was added. Petitioner was arrested on 08.02.2026. It was revealed that on 09.07.2025, he had transferred an amount of Rs.15,000/- in the bank account of Mangal Singh, maternal uncle of accused Harbans Singh @ Happy through Gpay for the purpose of bringing contraband to Abohar. This entry matched with the entries in the bank account statement of Mangal Singh. Investigation now stands completed

3. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in this case on the basis of disclosure statement of the co- accused which cannot be considered to be legally admissible in evidence. He was not named in the FIR. No recovery has been effected from him. He is in custody since long. Similarly situated co-accused Kundal Mal Menariya has been extended benefit of bail. On parity, he too deserves to be extended the same benefit. It is, therefore, argued that the petition deserves to be allowed.

4. Per contra, learned State counsel has argued that keeping in view the gravity of the allegations as levelled against the petitioner, he does not deserve to be released on bail. Therefore, it is stressed that the petition does not deserve to be allowed.

5. This Court has heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties at considerable length.

6. The petitioner is alleged to have been involved in the business of sale of poppy husk and as per the allegations, it was the contraband provided by him that was being carried in the vehicle from where it was recovered. He is in custody since 08.02.2026. He was not named in the FIR. He was nominated on the basis of disclosure statement of the co-accused. There has been no transaction of money between the petitioner and co- accused. The transfer of money in favour of Mangal Singh was qua purchase of drugs has to be tested during the course of trial on the basis of evidence and not at this stage. The rigors of Section 37 of NDPS Act are not attracted against him. The well settled proposition of law is that the Court while considering an application for grant of bail has to keep certain factors in mind, such as, whether there is a prima facie case or reasonable ground to b