Disclosure Statement Alone Not Enough: P&H High Court Dilutes Section 37 Rigour, Grants Bail in NDPS Case

Case Name: Prabhjot Singh @ Ashu v. State of Punjab

Date of Judgment: 18 March 2026

Citation: CRM-M No. 13678 of 2026

Bench: Justice Sumeet Goel

Held: The Punjab & Haryana High Court held that where an accused is implicated solely on the basis of disclosure statement of a co-accused without any independent corroborative material, the rigour of Section 37 of the NDPS Act stands diluted, warranting grant of bail, especially when incarceration is prolonged and investigation is incomplete.

Summary: The petitioner sought regular bail in a case registered under provisions of the NDPS Act, Arms Act, and Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. As noted, the petitioner was not apprehended at the spot and was nominated later on the basis of disclosure statement of co-accused from whom 305 grams of heroin was allegedly recovered.

The petitioner contended that his implication was solely based on disclosure statement, which has weak evidentiary value, and that mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act were not complied with. It was further argued that a co-accused, from whom recovery was made, had already been granted bail, and the petitioner had been in custody for over two months.

The State opposed the plea citing seriousness of allegations; however, the Court observed that there was no independent material linking the petitioner with the contraband except the disclosure statement. It reiterated that such statements, in absence of corroboration, cannot be the sole basis for implication.

The Court further relied on precedents emphasizing that confessional statements under NDPS Act are weak pieces of evidence and must be corroborated. It also highlighted that bail jurisprudence requires balancing personal liberty with societal interest, and that evidentiary value of such statements is to be tested at trial.

Importantly, the Court noted that the petitioner had undergone custody of over two months, was not involved in any other case, and the investigation was still pending with challan yet to be filed. In such circumstances, continued incarceration was held to be unwarranted.

The Court concluded that the rigours of Section 37 NDPS Act stood diluted in the peculiar facts of the case.

Decision: The High Court allowed the petition and granted regular bail to the petitioner, subject to stringent conditions including non-tampering with evidence, regular appearance before the trial court, and filing of monthly affidavits regarding non-involvement in any offence.