Co-Accused Memorandum Alone Insufficient For NDPS Detention: Madhya Pradesh HC

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has reinforced the evidentiary threshold for narcotics cases, ruling that a co-accused's memorandum statement, without independent corroboration, cannot sustain the rigorous bars of bail under the NDPS Act. In a significant protection of liberty, the Court held that the absence of physical recovery or prior criminal history necessitates the grant of bail even in serious drug-related offenses.

Justice Rajendra Kumar Vani, sitting at the Indore Bench, presided over the first bail application filed by the applicant under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023. The applicant sought regular bail in connection with Crime No. 35/2026 registered at Police Station Machalpur for various offenses punishable under Sections 30, 8, 22, 27(A), 25, and 29 of the NDPS Act.

Inadmissibility of Co-Accused Statements Under Evidence Act

The applicant's counsel argued that the entire case against the petitioner rested solely on the memorandum of a co-accused, Lalit. It was highlighted that nothing was seized from the applicant's possession and that the applicant had been in custody since February 11, 2026. The defense contended that such a memorandum is not admissible in evidence, thereby satisfying the stringent conditions for bail under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.

The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "...except the memorandum of co-accused recorded under Section 45 of the Evidence Act, no other evidence on record is available on record to implicate the present applicant and he is not having any criminal antecedents, therefore, satisfaction of Section 37 of NDPS Act is there."

The Court has following directions:

"i) The applicant will comply with all the terms and conditions of the bond executed by him;

ii) The applicant will cooperate in the investigation/trial, as the case may be;

iii) The applicant will not indulge himself in extending inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to the Police Officer, as the case may be;

iv) The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused;

v) The applicant will not seek unnecessary adjournments during the trial; and

vi) The applicant will not leave India without previous permission of the trial Court/Investigating Officer, as the case may be;

vii) If any of the aforesaid conditions is violated, then this order shall lose its effect automatically.

viii) If the applicant is found to be involved in any other offence, then this bail order shall stand cancelled automatically."

Background

The dispute arose following the registration of an FIR where the applicant was named based on a statement made by a co-accused, Lalit. Subsequently, based on the applicant's own memorandum, another individual, Deepak, was arrested. The State, represented by the Government Advocate, opposed the bail application, citing the severity of the offenses under the NDPS Act.

However, the High Court noted that the charge sheet had already been filed and the applicant had no prior criminal record. Interpreting the interaction between the NDPS Act and the Evidence Act, the Court found that the prosecution's reliance on a co-accused's statement without physical recovery failed to meet the evidentiary standards required to deny liberty. The Court allowed the application, directing the release of the applicant on a personal bond of Rs. 50,000.

Case Details:
Case No.: MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 42435 of 2026
Neutral Citation: 2026:MPHC-IND:26652
Case Title: RAMESHWAR Versus STATE OF M P
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Shri Himanshu Thakur - Advocate
For the Respondent(s): Shri Sunit Kapoor - Govt. Advocate

Source: 2026 CaseBase(MP) 24069