Regular bail may be granted under the NDPS Act when the accusation is based solely on a co-accused's disclosure statement without recovery of contraband or independent corroborative evidence, particularly when the accused has been in protracted custody before trial commencement.

JASJIT SINGH BEDI, J.

The prayer in these petitions under Section 483 BNSS, 2023 is for the grant of regular bail in case FIR No.480 dated 19.12.2025 registered under Sections 22(c) of the NDPS Act (Section 29 of NDPS Act added later on) at Police Station Taraori, District Karnal.

2. The brief facts of the case are that Sudhir Kumar @ Rohit came to be apprehended with 512 grams capsules of Tramadol. He disclosed that the same was supplied to him by one Aryan (petitioner in CRM-M-19323-2026). Aryan was apprehended and disclosed that he had been supplied the contraband by Mohsin @ Mohseen (petitioner in CRM-M-19092-2026).

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in the present case. He contends that the name of the petitioners figured in the disclosure statement of their co-accused. Pursuant to their arrest, no recovery whatsoever had been effected. Reliance is placed on the judgments in the cases of Tofan Singh Versus State of Tamil Nadu , 2020 AIR (Supreme Court) 5592, Rakesh Kumar Singla Versus Union of India, 2021(1) RCR (Criminal) 704, Surinder Kumar Khanna Versus Intelligence Officer Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, 2018(3) RCR (Criminal) 954, State by (NCB) Bengaluru Versus Pallulabid Ahmad Arimutta & Anr. 2022(1) RCR (Criminal) 762, Sanjeev Chandra Agarwal & Anr. Versus Union of India 2021(4) RCR (Criminal) 590, Vijay Singh Versus The State of Haryana, bearing Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.(s).1266/2023 decided on 17.05.2023 & Vikrant Singh Versus State of Punjab, CRM-M-39657- 2020”, wherein it has been held that the accused can be granted the concession of regular bail where he has been named in the disclosure statement of his co-accused and there is no other corroborative evidence against the accused. As the petitioners-Mohsin @ Mohseen and Aryan are the first time offenders, are in custody since 24.12.2025 and 21.12.2025 respectively but none of the 15 prosecution witnesses has been examined so far, they are entitled to the concession of bail.

4. On the other hand, the learned State counsel contends that in view of the serious allegations levelled against the petitioners, they are not entitled to the grant of bail. He, however, admits that the petitioners are named in the disclosure statement of their co-accused and no recovery was effected from them. He also concedes that the petitioners-Mohsin @ Mohseen and Aryan are the first time offenders, are in custody since 24.12.2025 and 21.12.2025 respectively and that none of the 15 prosecution witnesses has been examined so far.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties at length.

6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana Versus Samarth Kumar (supra), held as under:-

“4. The High Court decided to grant pre-arrest bail to the respondents on the only ground that no recovery was effected from the respondents and that they had been implicated only on the basis of the disclosure statement of the main accused Dinesh Kumar. Therefore, reliance was placed by the High Court in the majority judgment of this Court in Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu reported in (2021) 4 SCC 1.

5. But, it is contended by the learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the State of Haryana that on the basis of the anticipatory bail granted to the respondents, the Special Court was constrained to grant regular bail even to the main accused-Dinesh Kumar and he jumped bail. Fortunately, the main accused-Dinesh Kumar has again been apprehended. According to the learned Additional Advocate General, the respondent in the second of the