NDPS Bail Granted Where Accused Named Only in Co-Accused Disclosure and No Recovery Made: Punjab & Haryana High Court

Case Name: Mohd. Sheoran @ Mohd. Saharun v. State of Haryana

Date of Judgment: 09 March 2026

Citation: CRM-M-66115-2025

Bench: Justice Jasjit Singh Bedi

Held: The Punjab & Haryana High Court granted regular bail to an accused in an NDPS case where his name surfaced only in the disclosure statement of co-accused and no recovery was effected from him. The Court held that prolonged custody, absence of corroborative evidence, and slow progress of trial justified grant of bail despite the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act.

Summary: The petition was filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking regular bail in FIR No. 258 dated 08.08.2024 registered under Sections 22-C and 25 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act at Police Station Kunjpura, District Karnal.

The prosecution case originated when two persons, Sahrukh and Sajid, were apprehended with 4320 capsules of Tramadol weighing approximately 2 kilograms and 419 grams. During interrogation, they named one Umair Alam Chaudhary as the supplier. Upon his arrest, he further disclosed the name of Mohd. Rajee, who was subsequently arrested and allegedly named the present petitioner, Mohd. Sheoran @ Mohd. Saharun, as the supplier of the contraband.

The petitioner argued that he had been falsely implicated and that his name surfaced solely through the disclosure statement of a co-accused. It was contended that no recovery had been effected from him after his arrest and that there was no independent evidence linking him to the alleged offence. The petitioner relied on various judicial precedents, including Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu, to contend that disclosure statements of co-accused cannot form the sole basis for implicating an accused in NDPS cases.

The petitioner further submitted that he was a first-time offender and had been in custody since 25.05.2025. Out of the 24 prosecution witnesses cited in the case, only one had been examined so far, indicating that the trial was likely to take considerable time. The petitioner also pointed out that two co-accused—Umair Alam Chaudhary and Mohd. Rajee—had already been granted bail by the High Court.

The State opposed the bail application citing the seriousness of the allegations under the NDPS Act. However, the State acknowledged that the petitioner was named only in the disclosure statement of a co-accused and that no recovery had been effected from him. The State also did not dispute that the petitioner had no previous criminal record and that the trial had progressed slowly with only one witness examined so far.

The High Court examined various judicial precedents addressing the evidentiary value of disclosure statements and the grant of bail in NDPS cases. The Court observed that bail may be granted where an accused is implicated solely on the basis of disclosure statements of co-accused without independent corroboration or recovery.

The Court further noted that call detail records alone, without transcripts or substantive evidence establishing involvement in drug trafficking, cannot be treated as sufficient corroborative material. In the present case, there was no recovery from the petitioner and no independent material linking him to the alleged offence.

The Court also took into account that the petitioner had been in custody for several months and that the trial was unlikely to conclude soon given the large number of witnesses yet to be examined. The fact that co-accused had already been granted bail also weighed in favour of the petitioner.

Considering these circumstances, the Court held that continued incarceration of the petitioner was not necessary and that a prima facie satisfaction under Section 37 of the NDPS Act could be recorded in favour of the petitioner.

Decision: The Punjab & Haryana High Court allowed the petition and granted regular bail to the petitioner. The Court directed that the petitioner furnish bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the concerned trial court.

The Court further imposed conditions requiring the petitioner to appear before the concerned police station on the first Monday of every month until conclusion of the trial and to deposit a Fixed Deposit Receipt of ₹1,00,000 before the trial court, which would be liable to forfeiture in case of absence without sufficient cause.