Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Regular Bail to Accused Named Only in Disclosure Statement in NDPS Case

Case Name: Ahmed Sahid vs. State of Haryana
Date of Judgment: 14 November 2025
Citation: CRM-M-63097-2025
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Jasjit Singh Bedi

Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court allowed the petition and granted regular bail to the accused, holding that the petitioner was implicated solely based on a disclosure statement of a co-accused, and no recovery of contraband, incriminating material, mobile data or financial trail was attributed to him. The Court noted that the petitioner was a first-time offender and had been in custody since 08.09.2024, while only six out of fifty-nine prosecution witnesses had been examined. Applying the settled position that mere naming in a disclosure statement without independent corroboration is insufficient to justify continued detention, the Court held that the factual circumstances permitted recording of prima facie satisfaction under Section 37 NDPS Act for grant of bail.

Summary: The FIR was registered after recovery of a large quantity of cannabis from a vehicle following secret information. Multiple accused were arrested, and during interrogation, the petitioner’s name surfaced in their disclosure statements. The prosecution argued that the petitioner was part of a larger narcotics supply chain; however, it conceded that no contraband or other material was recovered from him. The defence submitted that the petitioner’s custody was unjustified since the case against him was based purely on statements of co-accused without independent evidence, relying on several Supreme Court and High Court decisions permitting bail in similar circumstances. The State acknowledged that a co-accused had already been granted bail and did not dispute the petitioner’s lack of prior criminal history or the slow pace of trial.

Decision: The Court held that the petitioner’s continued incarceration was unwarranted in the absence of recovery, documentary evidence or call transcripts establishing his role, and particularly when the trial was expected to take considerable time. Observing that statutory restrictions can be relaxed where the factual matrix supports a prima facie finding in favour of the accused, the petition was allowed. The petitioner was ordered to be released on bail subject to conditions, including appearance before the police station on the first Monday of every month and deposit of an FDR of ₹1,00,000/-, liable to forfeiture in case of absence during trial without sufficient cause. The petition and pending applications were disposed of.