Co-Accused's Statement Inadmissible Without Corroboration: Himachal Pradesh HC

Confessions made by co-accused to police officers during investigation cannot serve as substantive evidence to deny personal liberty when no independent material connects the applicant to the crime. The Himachal Pradesh High Court has reinforced that criminal antecedents alone do not justify continued detention if the prosecution fails to establish a prima facie case against the accused.

A single-judge bench of Justice Rakesh Kainthla heard the regular bail petition of an individual arrested under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act. The petitioner was implicated solely based on a disclosure statement made by a co-accused from whom narcotics were recovered. The Court examined whether such an inadmissible statement, coupled with past criminal records, could override the fundamental principle of 'bail, not jail'.

Key Takeaways

Inadmissibility of Co-Accused Statements

Confessional statements made to police during investigations are hit by Section 162 of Cr.P.C. and Section 25 of Indian Evidence Act, rendering them useless as substantive evidence.

Antecedents vs. Prima Facie Case

Criminal history cannot be the sole basis for denying bail if the current investigation lacks sufficient material to connect the accused to the alleged offence.

NDPS Section 67 Limitations

Confessions recorded by police officers under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act are not exempted from the evidentiary bars of the Indian Evidence Act.

Primacy of Personal Liberty

Where the charge-sheet is already filed and the accused has roots in society, further custodial detention serves no fruitful purpose in the absence of a flight risk.

Court's Rationale on Evidence and Antecedents

The Court observed that the prosecution's case rested entirely on the statement of co-accused Amit Kumar. Citing Dipakbhai Jagdishchandra Patel v. State of Gujarat ( "(2019) 16 SCC 547; (2020) 2 SCC (Cri) 361; 2019 SCC OnLine SC 588": 2019 CaseBase(SC) 3174) and Tofan Singh Versus State of Tamil Nadu ( "2021 (4) SCC 1": 2020 CaseBase(SC) 1147), the Court noted that a confession made to a police officer during the investigation is hit by Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act and is not saved by the provisions of Section 67 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act.

Addressing the State's concern regarding the petitioner's criminal history, the Court, in its reasoning, observed: "The criminal antecedents would have been relevant had the prosecution been able to establish a prima facie case against the petitioner. However, the police have failed to collect sufficient material to prima facie connect the petitioner with the commission of the crime, and he cannot be detained in custody simply because he has criminal antecedents."

Drawing from Ayub Khan v. State of Rajasthan ( "2024 SCC OnLine SC 3763: 2024:INSC:994": 2024 CaseBase(SC) 837), the Court reiterated that while antecedents are a consideration, they are not a ground to deny bail when a strong prima facie case for innocence or lack of evidence exists.

The Court has the following directions:

"(I) The petitioner will not intimidate the witnesses, nor will he influence any evidence in any manner whatsoever.

(II) The petitioner shall attend the trial on each and every hearing and will not seek unnecessary adjournments.

(III) The petitioner will not leave the present address for a continuous period of seven days without furnishing the address of the intended visit to the SHO concerned, the Police Station concerned and the Trial Court.

(IV) The petitioner will surrender his passport, if any, to the Court; and

(V) The petitioner will furnish his mobile number and social media contact to the Police and the Court and will abide by the summons/notices received from the Police/Court through SMS/WhatsApp/Social Media Account. In case of any change in the mobile number or social media accounts, the same will be intimated to the Police/Court within five days from the date of the change."

Ratio

A confessional statement of a co-accused recorded during a police investigation is inadmissible as substantive evidence. The existence of criminal antecedents is not a sufficient ground to deny bail under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act if the prosecution fails to provide independent prima facie evidence connecting the accused to the specific crime charged.

Background

The matter arose from FIR No. 69 of 2026 where the police apprehended one Amit Kumar with 40 capsules of Tramadol and 50 capsules of Pregabalin. During interrogation, Amit Kumar alleged he purchased the drugs from the petitioner. The State opposed the bail citing the petitioner's involvement in a previous NDPS case from 2020. However, the petitioner argued that no financial transactions or independent evidence linked him to the seizure.

The Court relied on Pinki v. State of U.P. and State of Rajasthan v. Balchand to weigh the parameters of bail, specifically noting that the nature of evidence is a vital factor. Following the 'bail not jail' rule established in State of Rajasthan v. Balchand, and noting that the charge-sheet had already been filed, the Court allowed the petition. The Court clarified that observations made for bail would not affect the merits of the trial.

Case Details:
Case No.: Cr. MP(M) No. 1514 of 2026
Case Title: Vishal Chauhan Versus State of Himachal Pradesh
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr Ashok Kumar Tyagi, Advocate.
For the Respondent(s): Mr Jitender Sharma, Additional Advocate General.

Source: 2026 CaseBase(HP) 8042