Bail Granted Under NDPS Act | Punjab & Haryana High Court Stresses Reasonable Grounds Of Innocence And Warns That Liberty Cannot Be Arbitrarily Curtailed
Safiya Malik
The High Court of Punjab and Haryana Single Bench of Justice Sumeet Goel has granted regular bail to an individual booked under Sections 21(c), 27-A, and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. The Court directed the petitioner’s release, holding that "further detention of the petitioner as an undertrial is not warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case." This decision came despite the invocation of the stringent bail limitations under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.
The Court found that the only evidence linking the petitioner to the offence was a disclosure statement made by a co-accused, which lacked corroboration through independent evidence. The judgment addresses the petitioner’s custodial status, the absence of direct recovery or electronic linkage, and past involvement in other FIRs, finding that these factors alone did not justify continued incarceration. The Court mandated several bail conditions, including periodic affidavits to confirm the petitioner’s non-involvement in any future offence. The judgement demonstrates a meticulous adherence to procedural safeguards and a measured application of statutory interpretation governing bail under NDPS offences.
The case arose from an FIR registered on 15 April 2025 at Police Station Behrampur, District Gurdaspur, Punjab, under Sections 21-C, 27-A, and 29 of the NDPS Act, 1985. The FIR alleged that a police team led by Inspector Gurmukh Singh, along with ASIs Jagir Chand, Satnam Singh, Manjit Singh, and PHG Naresh Kumar, was conducting anti-drone patrolling near the villages of Toor and Mummy Chack Ranga when they observed two young men behaving suspiciously near the Ravi riverbank.
Upon interception, the suspects were identified as Sahil Kumar, son of Mukesh Kumar, and Rajan Kumar alias Gama, son of Kewal Krishan, both residents of Toor village. One of them reportedly discarded a polythene bag into nearby bushes while attempting to flee. Upon inspection, the bag was found to contain heroin weighing 255 grams, inclusive of packaging. Additionally, Rs. 4,70,000/- was allegedly recovered and identified as drug money. The recovered contraband was sealed, seized, and a formal recovery memo was prepared.
The petitioner, Rajan Kumar alias Gama, was booked alongside Sahil Kumar. The FIR was registered under the relevant sections of the NDPS Act, treating the recovered heroin as a commercial quantity. The prosecution alleged that the presence of drug money and commercial quantity heroin warranted the application of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, which imposes stringent conditions for the grant of bail.
Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that his client had been falsely implicated and that there was no recovery from his possession. It was further submitted that the petitioner had already been in custody for over two months, and the only material against him was the disclosure statement made by co-accused Sahil Kumar.
The petitioner’s counsel stated the absence of any recovery of narcotics, drug money, or incriminating material from the petitioner. No mobile phone, call detail records, or financial transactions linked the petitioner to the offence or to the co-accused. The defense contended that reliance solely on a co-accused’s disclosure statement, without corroboration, is insufficient for denial of bail.
The State, represented by the Additional Advocate General, opposed the bail plea, citing the seriousness of the offence and the quantity of contraband recovered. The State also submitted that the petitioner had been involved in four other FIRs under the NDPS Act in the past two to three years and one FIR under the Prisons Act. A custody certificate dated 9 July 2025 was presented to substantiate the petitioner’s past record.
The petitioner’s counsel responded that while the petitioner was previously incarcerated, the present implication was solely based on a disclosure statement and that no direct recovery, call data records, or other evidence had been presented against him in the current case. The defense stated that the case fell short of meeting the stringent conditions required under Section 37 for denial of bail.
The Court undertook a detailed analysis of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, as amended in 1989, which stipulates that offences under Sections 19, 24, 27-A and those involving commercial quantities are cognizable and non-bailable. The statute mandates that no person accused of such offences shall be released on bail unless the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the application and the Court is satisfied that there are “reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.”
The Court examined precedents, including Union of India vs. Thamisharasi, Ahmadalieva Nodira, and Satpal Singh vs. State of Punjab, to interpret the threshold of “reasonable grounds.” The Court recorded that the term “reasonable grounds” requires more than prima facie suspicion; it must involve “substantial probable causes for believing that the accused is not guilty of the alleged offence.”
In assessing whether the petitioner met the dual conditions of Section 37, the Court observed: “The petitioner has been arraigned as an accused into the FIR in question on the basis of disclosure statement made by co-accused namely Sahil. The petitioner was admittedly in jail when the recovery from co-accused (Sahil) was made and no phone has been recovered from the petitioner himself or CDRs between the petitioner and the co-accused or any bank transaction between them.”
The Court noted that “the only material available against the petitioner is in the form of disclosure statement of co-accused from whom the contraband and drug money are stated to have been recovered.” Relying on Tofan Singh vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Vijay Singh vs. The State of Haryana, the Court observed that “a confession made by co-accused under Section 67 of the NDPS Act is inherently a very weak piece of evidence.”
The Court stated that such statements cannot form the sole basis for the conviction of an individual and must be scrutinized with utmost caution in conjunction with other substantive evidence. The judgment further stated: “No recovery has been effected from the possession of the petitioner, who has been subsequently implicated as an accused solely on the basis of disclosure statement of the co-accused.”
With regard to the petitioner’s antecedents, the Court recorded: “The facts remain that the petitioner has been languishing in gaol for the last 2/3 years albeit being incarcerated in another FIR(s).” However, it held that the requirement of Section 37(1)(b)(ii)—that the petitioner is not likely to commit any offence while on bail—could be met by mandating periodic affidavits by the petitioner.
The Court allowed the petition and directed that the petitioner “is ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Ld. concerned Special Court, NDPS Act/Duty Magistrate.” It also specified that the petitioner shall remain bound by additional conditions:
“(i) The petitioner shall not misuse the liberty granted.
(ii) The petitioner shall not tamper with any evidence, oral or documentary, during the trial.
(iii) The petitioner shall not absent himself on any date before the trial.
(iv) The petitioner shall not commit any offence while on bail.
(v) The petitioner shall deposit his passport, if any, with the trial Court.
(vi) The petitioner shall give his cellphone number to the Investigating Officer/SHO of concerned Police Station and shall not change his cell-phone number without prior permission of the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate.
(vii) The petitioner shall not in any manner try to delay the trial.
(viii) The petitioner shall submit, on the first working day of every month, an affidavit before the concerned Special Judge of NDPS Court, to the effect that he has not been involved in commission of any offence after being released on bail.”
The Court further directed: “In case the petitioner is found to be involved in any offence after his being enlarged on bail in the present FIR, on the basis of his affidavit or otherwise, the State is mandated to move, forthwith, for cancellation of his bail which plea, but of course, shall be ratiocinated upon merits thereof.”
The Court clarified: “Nothing said hereinabove shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.”
Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Ruhani Chadha, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. Durgesh Garg, Additional Advocate General, Punjab
Case Title: Jaswinder Singh alias Kala vs. State of Punjab
Neutral Citation: 2025: PHHC:089161
Case Number: CRM-M-33729-2025
Bench: Justice Sumeet Goel
