An accused person implicated solely by the disclosure statements of co-accused under the NDPS Act, with no independent recovery or corroborative evidence, can be granted regular bail upon recording prima facie satisfaction under Section 37 regarding the lack of substantive evidence.

JASJIT SINGH BEDI, J.(ORAL)

The prayer in this 2nd petition under Section 483 BNSS, 2023 is for the grant of regular bail in case FIR No.263 dated 16.06.2025 (Annexure P-1) registered under Sections 21(c), 27-A and 29 of NDPS Act at Police Station City Faridkot, District Faridkot.

The brief facts of the case are that Rohit Kumar @ Dhobi, Amir Singh @ Rohit and Balraj Singh came to be apprehended and found in possession of 430 grams of heroin, a computerized weighing scale, Rs. 20,000/- and a mobile phone. Out of the total recovery, 300 grams of heroin along with one mobile phone was recovered from the possession of Rohit Kumar @ Dhobi whereas 300 grams of heroin was recovered from the possession of Amir Singh @ Rohit. During interrogation of accused Rohit Kumar @ Dhobi and Ameer Singh @ Rohit, Amarjeet Singh @ Nikka (petitioner) was nominated in the present case under Section 29 of NDPS Act vide DDR No.22 dated 18.06.2025. During further investigation, vide DDR No.19 dated 01.12.2025 offence U/s 27-A of NDPS Act was added.

The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. He contends that the name of the petitioner figured in the disclosure statement of his co-accused. Pursuant to his 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 petitioner is a first-time offender, is in custody since 20.06.2025 and none of the 20 prosecution witnesses has been examined so far, he is entitled to the concession of bail.

The learned counsel for the respondent-State, on the other hand, contends that in view of the serious allegations levelled against the petitioner, he is not entitled to the grant of bail. He, however, admits that the petitioner is named in the disclosure statement of his co-accused and no recovery was effected from him. He also concedes that the petitioner is a first-time offender, is in custody since 20.06.2025 and none of the 20 prosecution witnesses has been examined so far.

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

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 these appeals is also a habitual offender.

6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the resp