Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Bail in NDPS Case; Holds Disclosure Statement Alone Without Recovery Insufficient to Deny Bail

Case Name: Tejpal Singh v. State of Haryana

Date of Decision: 23 January 2026

Citation: CRM-M-2981-2026

Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Jasjit Singh Bedi

Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court allowed the petition for regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, holding that mere implication of an accused on the basis of the disclosure statement of a co-accused, without any recovery or corroborative material, is insufficient to deny bail even in an NDPS case. The Court held that where the accused is a first-time offender, no recovery is effected from him, and the trial is unlikely to conclude soon, a prima facie satisfaction under Section 37 of the NDPS Act can be recorded in favour of bail.

Summary : The petitioner sought regular bail in FIR No.228 dated 12.09.2025 registered at Police Station City Ratia, District Fatehabad, for offences under Sections 22(c) and 27-A of the NDPS Act. The case arose from the arrest of one Sunil, from whom Etizolam and Buprenorphine strips were recovered. During interrogation, Sunil named the petitioner in his disclosure statement.

The petitioner was arrested on 14.09.2025. No contraband or incriminating material was recovered from him. The prosecution case against the petitioner rested solely on the disclosure statement of the co-accused and call detail records, without any transcript or evidence of the actual conversation allegedly linking him to the offence.

The petitioner contended that he was falsely implicated, was a first-time offender, had remained in custody for over four months, and that none of the 14 prosecution witnesses had been examined, making early conclusion of trial unlikely. Reliance was placed on several judgments including Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu, State by (NCB) Bengaluru v. Pallulabid Ahmad Arimutta, Vijay Singh v. State of Haryana and Vikrant Singh v. State of Punjab.

The State opposed the bail plea citing the seriousness of NDPS offences but conceded that the petitioner was named only in the disclosure statement, that no recovery was effected from him, and that he was a first-time offender.

After examining the law, the High Court reiterated that confessional or disclosure statements under the NDPS Act are inadmissible as substantive evidence, and that mere call details without conversation transcripts cannot constitute corroborative material. The Court held that continued incarceration in such circumstances would be unjustified.

Decision: The petition was allowed.The petitioner was ordered to be released on regular bail.