Disclosure Statements Alone Not Enough: P&H High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail in NDPS Case Over Lack of Direct Evidence
Case Name: Ankit Gupta v. State of Punjab
Date of Judgment: 18 March 2026
Citation: CRM-M-66947-2025
Bench: Justice Manisha Batra
Held: The Punjab & Haryana High Court held that anticipatory bail can be granted in NDPS cases where the accused is implicated primarily on the basis of disclosure statements and call records, without independent corroborative evidence indicating conscious involvement in illicit trade.
Summary: The petitioner sought anticipatory bail in an NDPS case involving recovery of large quantities of Alprazolam and Tramadol tablets from a co-accused. The petitioner was not named in the FIR and was later nominated based on disclosure statements of co-accused and alleged telephonic communication.
The prosecution case, involved a chain of accused persons allegedly engaged in illicit drug trade, with recoveries made from a vehicle and a pharmaceutical shop, including large quantities of narcotic tablets and cash. The petitioner’s role emerged subsequently through disclosures and alleged exchange of a photograph of medicine boxes via WhatsApp.
The petitioner contended that he was falsely implicated, that disclosure statements are inadmissible in evidence, and that his interactions with co-accused were part of routine business communications in his capacity as Sales and Marketing Head of a pharmaceutical company. He further argued that the drugs were lawfully sold to licensed dealers with proper documentation and that any misuse by downstream parties could not be attributed to him.
The State opposed the plea, relying on call detail records and the alleged exchange of photographs indicating tampering with batch numbers to facilitate illegal sale, asserting that custodial interrogation was necessary to uncover the conspiracy.
The High Court, however, observed that the petitioner’s implication was primarily based on disclosure statements and call records, whose evidentiary value would have to be tested during trial. It held that such material, in the absence of substantive corroboration, does not conclusively establish conscious involvement in the offence at the stage of bail.
The Court also noted that the petitioner had clean antecedents, was engaged in a regular profession, and that the investigation largely involved documentary evidence already in possession of the investigating agency. It further held that custodial interrogation was not indispensable in the facts of the case.
Decision: The High Court allowed the anticipatory bail petition and directed the petitioner to join investigation, holding that his presence could be secured through conditions without the need for custodial interrogation.