Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Regular Bail in NDPS Case, Says Disclosure by Co-Accused Cannot Be Sole Basis for Prosecution
Case Name: Karan @ Jona v. State of Punjab
Date of Judgment: October 14, 2025
Citation: CRM-M-56310-2025
Bench: Hon’ble Ms. Justice Rupinderjit Chahal
Held: The Punjab & Haryana High Court granted regular bail to an accused in an NDPS case, holding that mere nomination based on the disclosure statement of a co-accused without corroborative evidence cannot justify prolonged custody. Justice Rupinderjit Chahal reiterated that such statements are inadmissible under Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act as per the Supreme Court’s judgment in Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu (AIR 2020 SC 5592). The Court emphasized that continued incarceration pending trial, especially when recovery is of marginal quantity, would violate Article 21 of the Constitution.
Summary: The petitioner was seeking bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in FIR No. 109 dated July 17, 2025, registered under Sections 21-B, 27-A/29/61/85 of the NDPS Act at Police Station Sultanwind, District Amritsar. As per the prosecution, co-accused Pargat Singh @ Bagoo was apprehended with 9.88 grams of heroin and, during interrogation, named the petitioner. Subsequently, a recovery of 5.54 grams of heroin was allegedly made from the petitioner.
The defence contended that the petitioner was falsely implicated, was not present at the scene, and was nominated solely on the basis of a co-accused’s disclosure statement. It was argued that such statements are inadmissible and cannot form the basis for prosecution. The petitioner had been in custody since July 19, 2025, and the investigation was still pending.
Justice Chahal relied on Tofan Singh (supra), Najmunisha Abdul Hamid Chandmiya v. State of Gujarat (2024 INSC 290), and Vijay Singh v. State of Haryana (SLP (Crl.) No. 1266/2023, decided on May 17, 2023), reaffirming that statements made to NDPS officers are inadmissible and cannot sustain an arrest without independent corroboration. The Court further referred to Dataram Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2018) 2 RCR (Criminal) 131, holding that prolonged detention during trial violates the principle that “bail is the rule and jail is the exception.”
While noting that the petitioner was allegedly involved in two other cases, the Court cited Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi v. State of U.P. (2012) 2 SCC 382, holding that antecedents alone cannot be grounds to deny bail if the present case merits release.
Decision: The High Court allowed the petition and granted regular bail to the petitioner on furnishing requisite bonds to the satisfaction of the trial court. It clarified that nothing stated in the order shall influence the merits of the ongoing trial.