A disclosure statement by a co-accused under the NDPS Act, lacking corroborative evidence, carries limited evidentiary value and is insufficient to justify denying bail, particularly when the accused has already served a significant period of incarceration.

240

*****

SUMEET GOEL, J. (ORAL)

1. Present petition has been filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) (439 Cr.P.C.) for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.269 dated 25.07.2025 under Sections 21-C of the NDPS Act, 1985 (Section 29 of NDPS Act and Section 111(2)(ii) of the BNS added later on), registered at Police Station Sadar Yamuna Nagar, District 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 507.3 grams of heroin and the petitioner has been nominated, in this case, on the disclosure of co-accused, namely, Naeem.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the petitioner is in custody since 27.7.2025. 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, Naeem. Learned counsel has further iterated that the petitioner has suffered incarceration for 5 months and 21 days. Thus, regular bail is prayed for.

4. Learned State counsel has filed reply in Court today. The same is taken on record. Raising submissions in tandem with the said reply, 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 23.4.2026 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 27.7.2025 and on culmination of investigation, Challan was presented on 19.01.2026 but charges have not been framed against him 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-Naeem, from whom drug money of Rs.2,500/- 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 As per custody certificate dated 23.4.2026 filed by learned State counsel, the petitioner has already suffered incarceration for a period of 5 months and 21 days. As per the said custody certificate, the petitioner is stated to be involved in 01 more FIR(s) registered under the NDPS Act. Indubitably, the antecedents of a person are required to be accounted for while considering a regular bail petition