Disclosure Statements of Co-Accused Weak Evidence: PHHC allows bail in NDPS Case

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has reinforced the legal principle that disclosure statements made by co-accused under narcotic laws constitute 'inherently weak' evidence, granting bail to a petitioner implicated solely on such statements without any physical recovery.

Justice Manisha Batra presided over the petition filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking regular bail in NDPS case for the petitioner who was nominated as an accused in a matter involving the seizure of 1006 intoxicant tablets. The petitioner had been arrested based on a disclosure statement made by a co-accused, Ritik, who was apprehended in March 2025.

Key Takeaways

Evidentiary Value of Disclosures

Disclosure statements by co-accused under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 are insufficient for conviction unless corroborated by independent substantive material.

Custody and Punishment

Pre-trial detention should not be punitive or preventive; its primary objective is to ensure the presence of the accused during the trial proceedings.

Strict Scrutiny of Nominations

Courts must exercise caution when individuals are nominated as accused based solely on statements made during police interrogation without direct recovery.

Judicial Scrutiny of Section 67 NDPS Statements

The Punjab and Haryana High Court analyzed the prosecution's case, which rested on the allegation that the petitioner supplied contraband to the co-accused. Referencing the landmark ruling in Tofan Singh Vs. State of Tamil Nadu ( "(2021) 4 SCC 1": 2020 CaseBase(SC) 1147), the Bench noted that statements made under Section 67 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 are inadmissible unless supported by independent evidence. The Punjab and Haryana High Court further observed that the petitioner was already in custody in another case at the time the FIR was registered, and no recovery was ever effected from him.

The Bench observed that "...a confession made by a co-accused under Section 67 of the NDPS Act is inherently a very weak piece of evidence and such statement cannot form the sole basis for conviction of an individual and must be scrutinized with utmost caution in conjunction with other substantive evidence."

Drawing support from Anshul Sardana Vs. State of Punjab, the Bench underscored that the final admissibility of such statements is a matter for the trial court to adjudicate, but current circumstances warranted the petitioner's release.

Ratio

A disclosure statement made by a co-accused under Section 67 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, is inherently weak evidence and cannot form the sole basis for conviction or continued detention without independent corroboration or physical recovery from the accused.

Background

The dispute originated from the arrest of one Ritik on March 27, 2025, after he was found in possession of 1006 intoxicant tablets. During interrogation, Ritik named the petitioner, Bikram Singh alias Vicky, as the source of the drugs. The petitioner was subsequently arrested on July 19, 2025. The petitioner's counsel argued that the implication was false, highlighting the lack of recovery and the petitioner's prior custody in a separate FIR (No. 19). The State opposed the bail in NDPS case citing the gravity of the allegations. The Punjab and Haryana High Court ultimately allowed the petition, noting that the investigation was complete and the trial would likely be protracted.

Case Details:
Case No.: CRM-M No.41740 of 2026
Case Title: Bikram Singh @ Vicky Vs. State of Punjab
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Ruhani Chadha, Advocate
For the Respondent(s): Ms. Sakshi Bakshi, AAG, Punjab

Source: 2026 CaseBase(PNH) 24105