NDPS Act: Co-Accused’s Disclosure Statement Without Independent Incriminating Evidence Insufficient to Prosecute Accused Where No Contraband Recovered; Punjab and Haryana High Court Quashes FIR Under Section 528 BNSS

Case Name: Manish Kumar Saroha v. State of Haryana

Date of Judgment: 29 September 2026

Citation: CRM-M-34237-2025

Bench: Hon’ble Ms. Justice Neerja K. Kalson

Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that criminal prosecution under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, cannot be sustained against an accused merely on the basis of a disclosure statement attributed to a co-accused where no contraband has been recovered from the accused and the investigation has failed to disclose any independent incriminating material establishing a prima facie connection with the recovered narcotic substance. The mere attribution of a role through disclosure statements, without material linking the accused to possession, procurement, financing or facilitation of the contraband, is insufficient to justify continuation of criminal proceedings.

The Court further held that the evidentiary restrictions governing confessional statements under the NDPS Act, as explained by the Supreme Court in Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2021) 4 SCC 1, and Balwinder Singh (Binda) v. Narcotics Control Bureau, 2023 INSC 852, assume significance where the prosecution’s case against a particular accused rests substantially upon statements recorded during investigation. In such circumstances, the Court must examine whether any independent incriminating material survives to establish the requisite factual nexus between the accused and the alleged offence.

The High Court observed that a jail canteen record establishing the purchase of articles worth ₹1,997 could not, by itself, prove that such articles constituted consideration for procuring narcotic substances. Similarly, a forensic report confirming that a substance recovered from another accused was charas established the nature of the contraband but did not establish its possession, procurement or consumption by the petitioner.

Reiterating the principles governing inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the Court held that where the material collected during investigation, even if accepted at face value, fails to disclose the essential factual foundation connecting an accused with the alleged offence, continuation of the prosecution would amount to an abuse of the process of law. The High Court may consequently quash such proceedings without conducting a detailed appreciation of evidence or determining the ultimate guilt or innocence of the accused.

Summary: The Punjab and Haryana High Court, while exercising its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, examined whether criminal proceedings under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, could continue against an accused who had not been found in possession of any contraband and whose alleged involvement was founded principally upon the disclosure statement of a co-accused, supported by a jail canteen purchase record and a forensic report identifying the recovered substance as charas.

The petitioner, Manish Kumar Saroha, sought quashing of FIR No. 0042 dated 23.01.2025, registered at Police Station Bhondsi, District Gurugram, under Section 61 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Section 20 of the NDPS Act, 1985, and Section 42-A of the Prisons Act, which had been added subsequently. The petitioner also sought quashing of all consequential proceedings arising from the FIR insofar as they related to him.

The prosecution case originated from a complaint received from District Jail, Bhondsi, Gurugram. During a search conducted in a jail barrack, four grams of a narcotic substance were allegedly recovered from the possession of co-accused Mohit. Upon questioning, Mohit allegedly disclosed that the substance was intended for the petitioner in exchange for canteen articles worth ₹1,997 provided in connection with a birthday celebration.

The recovered substance was subsequently examined by the Regional Forensic Science Laboratory, which confirmed that it was charas. On the basis of the recovery and the statements recorded during investigation, the petitioner was implicated in the criminal proceedings.

Challenging his prosecution, the petitioner contended that no contraband had been recovered from his person, belongings or any place under his possession or control. It was argued that the prosecution sought to connect him with the recovered charas primarily through the disclosure statement of co-accused Mohit and subsequent disclosure statements recorded during investigation.

The petitioner further submitted that the jail canteen record merely established the purchase of articles worth ₹1,997 and did not demonstrate that those articles had been supplied in exchange for narcotic substances. The prosecution had failed to produce any independent material establishing that the petitioner had requested, financed or otherwise facilitated the procurement of charas.

An additional factual discrepancy was highlighted regarding the alleged birthday celebration. According to the prosecution, the narcotic substance had been procured for a party allegedly held on 14.01.2025 in connection with the petitioner’s birthday. However, the petitioner’s passport and a document issued by Canadian authorities recorded his date of birth as 13.06.1979.

The petitioner argued that the inconsistency undermined the very circumstance relied upon by the prosecution to explain the alleged procurement of narcotics. It was therefore contended that continuation of the criminal proceedings, in the absence of any independent incriminating material, would constitute an abuse of the process of law.

The State opposed the petition, maintaining that sufficient material had been collected during investigation. It relied upon the disclosure statement of co-accused Mohit, the statement attributed to the petitioner, the jail canteen purchase records and the RFSL report confirming the recovered substance as charas.

The State further submitted that the investigation had concluded and the final report had been presented. According to the prosecution, the issues raised by the petitioner required appreciation of evidence and ought to be determined by the trial Court rather than in proceedings under Section 528 BNSS.

The High Court identified the central question as whether the material collected during investigation, even when accepted at face value, disclosed a prima facie nexus between the petitioner and the contraband recovered from the co-accused sufficient to justify continuation of the prosecution.

At the outset, the Court considered the scope of inherent jurisdiction and observed that the High Court is not required to undertake a meticulous evaluation of evidence or determine whether the prosecution would ultimately result in conviction. Nevertheless, where investigation has concluded and a final report has been filed, the Court may examine the material collected for the limited purpose of determining whether the essential ingredients of the alleged offence are disclosed against the particular accused.

In this regard, the Court relied upon the Supreme Court judgment in Sajal Bose v. State of West Bengal and Others, 2026 INSC 322 : 2026 SCC OnLine SC 525, which reiterated the principles governing quashing of criminal proceedings where the allegations and material collected during investigation fail to disclose the commission of an offence.

The Court noted that the Supreme Court had reaffirmed the applicability of the principles laid down in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, particularly where continuation of criminal proceedings, despite the absence of material establishing the necessary ingredients of an offence, would amount to misuse of the criminal justice process.

Applying these principles, the High Court observed that the contraband had admittedly been recovered from co-accused Mohit and that no narcotic substance had been recovered from the petitioner, his belongings or any premises under his possession or control.

The Court then examined the evidentiary foundation of the prosecution’s case, which rested substantially upon the disclosure statement attributed to Mohit.

Referring to the Constitution Bench decision in Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2021) 4 SCC 1, the Court recalled that officers invested with powers under Section 53 of the NDPS Act are police officers within the meaning of Section 25 of the Evidence Act, and that confessional statements made to such officers are barred from being relied upon for conviction. The Supreme Court had further held that statements recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act cannot be used as confessional statements in trials for offences under the NDPS Act.

The High Court also considered Balwinder Singh (Binda) v. Narcotics Control Bureau, 2023 INSC 852, wherein the Supreme Court examined the consequences of excluding confessional statements recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act. In that case, the Supreme Court found that once the statements attributed to the accused and co-accused were excluded, no independent incriminating evidence remained connecting the accused with the offence, rendering the conviction unsustainable.

Drawing upon these authorities, the High Court clarified that its examination was not intended to conclusively determine the admissibility or evidentiary value of the disclosure statements, matters ordinarily falling within the domain of the trial Court. The limited inquiry was whether any independent incriminating material had emerged during investigation connecting the petitioner with the alleged offence.

The Court observed that the disclosure statements had not resulted in recovery of any contraband from the petitioner or at his instance. It accordingly proceeded to examine the remaining material, particularly the jail canteen records and the forensic report.

Regarding the alleged birthday celebration, the Court noted that the prosecution’s account was materially weakened by the documentary evidence recording the petitioner’s date of birth as 13 June, whereas the alleged party was stated to have been held on 14 January.

The High Court carefully clarified that the discrepancy in the date of birth did not conclusively establish that no gathering had taken place on 14.01.2025. Nevertheless, the inconsistency materially weakened the prosecution’s explanation for the alleged procurement of narcotic substances.

More importantly, the Court found no independent material establishing that the petitioner had instructed, requested, financed or otherwise facilitated the procurement of charas. There was also no evidence, independent of the disclosure statements, indicating that the canteen articles allegedly purchased by the petitioner constituted consideration for the contraband.

The Court consequently held that the incriminating character attributed to the canteen purchase records arose essentially from the disclosure version itself, rather than from any independently established circumstance.

Turning to the RFSL report, the High Court observed that the scientific examination established that the substance recovered from Mohit was charas. However, the forensic report did not connect the petitioner with possession, procurement or consumption of the recovered narcotic substance.

The Court reiterated that proof of recovery of a narcotic substance from one accused does not, without additional linking material, establish the criminal involvement of another person merely because that person’s name appears in a disclosure statement.

The High Court again referred to Sajal Bose, wherein the Supreme Court had recognised that compelling an accused to face a full criminal trial despite the absence of credible material connecting the accused with the alleged offence could constitute misuse of the criminal process.

Upon evaluating the material within the limited scope permissible under Section 528 BNSS, the Court found that the prosecution had failed to disclose any independent incriminating circumstance connecting the petitioner with the charas recovered from Mohit.

The petitioner’s alleged involvement continued to rest essentially upon disclosure statements, while the canteen records and forensic report did not supply the necessary factual link.

The High Court accordingly concluded that even if the material collected during investigation was accepted at its face value, it did not disclose a sufficient prima facie foundation for continuing criminal proceedings against the petitioner under the NDPS Act.

In the absence of such a nexus, requiring the petitioner to face criminal trial would serve no meaningful purpose and would amount to an abuse of the process of law, justifying exercise of the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction to secure the ends of justice.

Decision: The Punjab and Haryana High Court allowed the petition filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, and quashed FIR No. 0042 dated 23.01.2025, registered at Police Station Bhondsi, District Gurugram, under Section 61 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Section 20 of the NDPS Act, 1985, and Section 42-A of the Prisons Act, together with all consequential criminal proceedings, insofar as they related to petitioner Manish Kumar Saroha.

The Court held that the prosecution had failed to establish a prima facie factual nexus between the petitioner and the contraband recovered from co-accused Mohit. No narcotic substance had been recovered from the petitioner, and the disclosure statements had not resulted in any recovery at his instance.

The jail canteen records established only the purchase of articles worth ₹1,997, while the RFSL report established only the nature of the recovered substance. Neither furnished independent incriminating material linking the petitioner to the alleged procurement, possession or consumption of charas.

The Court further found that the inconsistency between the petitioner’s documented date of birth and the date of the alleged birthday celebration weakened the prosecution’s explanation for the alleged transaction.

Consequently, the High Court held that continuation of the criminal proceedings against the petitioner would amount to an abuse of the process of law and warranted intervention under Section 528 BNSS.