Himanshu vs State of Haryana - 2026 Supreme(Online)(P&H) 80555

Headnote:(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Section 483 - Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Sections 22(c) and 29 - Regular bail - Petitioner implicated solely on disclosure statement of co-accused - No recovery from petitioner - Co-accused granted bail - Custody of 3 months and 9 days - Rigor of Section 37 NDPS Act diluted in view of long incarceration and weak evidence - Bail granted subject to conditions. (Paras 6, 6.1, 6.2, 6.3, 6.4)

(B) Evidence - Disclosure statement of co-accused - In absence of corroborative evidence, holds limited evidentiary value and cannot be sole basis for implication - Such statement to be tested at trial. (Para 6)

(C) Bail - Principles - Section 37 NDPS Act - Twin conditions - Nature and mode of satisfaction depends on judicial discretion - No exhaustive guidelines - Involvement in other FIRs not sufficient by itself to deny bail. (Para 6.2, 6.4)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner was arrested on 2.2.2026 in connection with FIR under NDPS Act involving 2500 tablets of tramadol recovered from co-accused Ravi, who named Parveen, who named Vibhanshu, who in turn named the petitioner. No contraband was recovered from the petitioner. Challan was presented on 18.4.2026 with 22 prosecution witnesses, none examined. Co-accused Parveen Kumar and Divyanshu @ Vishu were granted regular bail.

Findings of Court:
The Court held that the petitioner being implicated solely on disclosure statement of co-accused, without corroborative evidence, raises serious doubts about fairness of investigation. The rigor of Section 37 NDPS Act stands diluted in such circumstances. Further detention as undertrial not warranted. Petition allowed; petitioner granted regular bail subject to conditions including monthly affidavit of no further involvement in any offence.

Issues: Whether a petitioner implicated solely on the basis of disclosure statement of co-accused, with no recovery and co-accused already granted bail, is entitled to regular bail under BNSS read with NDPS Act.

Ratio Decidendi: A disclosure statement of a co-accused, in the absence of corroborative evidence, is weak evidence and cannot be the sole basis for implication. Where such statement is the only basis, and the petitioner has suffered incarceration, the rigor of Section 37 NDPS Act is diluted, and bail may be granted subject to conditions to ensure non-recurrence of offence. Result : Petition allowed.

Legal Category Hierarchy

1. Bail petition under BNSS for NDPS Act offences based on disclosure statement of co-accused — Contraband recovered from others. (Para 1 , 2 )

2. Petitioner argued sole basis disclosure statement and non-compliance of NDPS provisions; State opposed citing seriousness of offence. (Para 3 , 4 )

3. Bail allowed with conditions including monthly affidavit of no further offence and other standard bail conditions. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 )

4. What is the evidentiary value of a disclosure statement of a co-accused in NDPS cases for the purpose of bail?

Disclosure statements, without corroborative evidence, hold limited evidentiary value and cannot be the sole basis for implicating an accused for bail. (Para 6 )

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.268 dated 28.11.2025, under Sections 22(c) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, registered at Police Station Siwan, Kaithal.

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 5 boxes containing 2500 tablets of tramadol, weighing 452.5 grams, allegedly recovered from co-accused, namely Ravi, who disclosed the name of co-accused Parveen, who further disclosed the name of co accused Vibhanshu, and the petitioner has been nominated, in this case, on the disclosure of said co-accused Vibhanshu.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the petitioner is in custody since 2.2.2026. 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 Vibhanshu.. Learned counsel has also argued that the co-accused of the petitioner, namely, Parveen Kumar and Divyanshu @ Vishu, have already been granted the concession of regular bail by this Court vide orders dated 7.4.2026 passed in CRM-M No.17196 of 2026 and 22.4.2026 passed in CRM-M No.19622 of 2026. Learned counsel has further iterated that the petitioner has suffered incarceration for more than 3 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 12.5.2026 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 2.2.2026 whereinafter investigation was carried out and challan qua him was presented on 18.4.2026. Total 22 prosecution witnesses have been cited, but none 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-Vibhanshu. It is not in dispute that co-accused, namely, Parveen Kumar and Divyanshu @ Vishu have already been granted concession of regular bail by this Court. 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 judgm

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(P&H) 80555

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Sumeet Goel, J
Himanshu – Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana – Respondent
CRM-M No.25878 of 2026

A disclosure statement of a co-accused, without corroborative evidence, is weak and cannot be the sole basis for implication under NDPS Act; bail may be granted when co-accused are already on bail and the accused has suffered incarceration.

Legal Category Hierarchy

Table of Contents

4. What is the evidentiary value of a disclosure statement of a co-accused in NDPS cases for the purpose of bail?

2026 Supreme(Online)(P&H) 80555

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARHSumeet Goel, JHimanshu – AppellantVersusState of Haryana – RespondentCRM-M No.25878 of 2026

A disclosure statement of a co-accused, without corroborative evidence, is weak and cannot be the sole basis for implication under NDPS Act; bail may be granted when co-accused are already on bail and the accused has suffered incarceration.

Legal Category Hierarchy

Table of Contents

4. What is the evidentiary value of a disclosure statement of a co-accused in NDPS cases for the purpose of bail?

Cases Referred (1)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Sumeet Goel, J
Himanshu – Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana – Respondent
CRM-M No.25878 of 2026