Disclosure Statement Alone Insufficient for Custody in NDPS Cases: Punjab and Haryana HC

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that a disclosure statement without corroborative evidence cannot justify prolonged incarceration. Striking a balance between the stringent provisions of the NDPS Act and the right to a fair trial, the Bench granted bail to an accused whose involvement was primarily predicated on a co-accused's statement.

Justice Alok Jain, presiding over the matter, considered the plea for regular bail in a case where the petitioner was not named in the initial FIR but was later implicated through a disclosure statement. The Punjab and Haryana High observed that the trial was likely to take considerable time and noted that the petitioner had already spent over five months in custody.

Key Takeaways

Primacy of Corroborative Evidence

The ruling reinforces that a mere disclosure statement under the NDPS Act is insufficient for continued detention in the absence of cogent or corroborative evidence.

Parity in Bail Jurisprudence

The Court affirmed that if a co-accused in a similar or worse position has been granted bail, the principle of parity can be a significant factor in granting relief, provided the facts align.

Trial Duration and Personal Liberty

By acknowledging that the trial would take 'considerable time', the Court signaled that indefinite pre-trial detention cannot be used as a punitive measure when evidence is thin.

Judicial Scrutiny of Disclosure Statements

The petitioner had moved the Punjab and High Court seeking bail for offences under Section 21 and Section 29 of the NDPS Act. The petitioner argued that he was entangled solely on the basis of a disclosure statement and claimed parity with a co-accused who had already been granted bail. The State, however, contended that the petitioner played a 'pivotal role' in the contraband supply chain and possessed a criminal history, though it could not deny that parity existed regarding the bail of the co-accused.

Ratio

A disclosure statement of a co-accused, in the absence of any other cogent or corroborative evidence linking the petitioner to the alleged crime, is insufficient to warrant continued incarceration under the NDPS Act, especially when the trial is not expected to conclude soon and parity with other bailed co-accused is established.

Background

The case originated from FIR No. 37 dated 09.02.2026 at Police Station Sadar Pehowa. While the petitioner was initially granted interim bail, he was subsequently arrested in another FIR (No. 30), leading to the vacation of his interim relief in the present case. After securing bail in the second FIR, the petitioner approached the High Court. The Punjab and Haryana High Court analyzed the lack of physical evidence linking the petitioner to the recovery of contraband and ultimately allowed the petition, directing his release subject to stringent conditions and the provisions of Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023.

Case Details:

Case No.: CRM-M-38376-2026 (O&M)

Neutral Citation: 2026:PHHC:126992

Case Title: GURJIT SINGH Versus STATE OF HARYANA

Appearances:

For the Petitioner(s): Ms. Himani Anand, Advocate

For the Respondent(s): Mr. Amish Sharma, AAG, Haryana

Source: 2026 CaseBase(PNH) 19307