Punjab & Haryana High Court: The Manner in Which the Accused is Arraigned in an FIR Holds Significance in Adjudicating Pre-Arrest Bail Pleas Under the NDPS Act

Post By 24law
January 12, 2025

Pranav B Prem

The Punjab & Haryana High Court has held that the manner in which an accused is arraigned in the FIR is a critical factor in deciding anticipatory bail pleas under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act. Justice Sumeet Goel emphasized the need to assess the nature of allegations, the evidence linking the accused to the offense, and their specific role in the alleged crime.

While adjudicating anticipatory bail pleas, the Court noted, “The final evidentiary value and admissibility of the disclosure statement made by a co-accused fall within the domain of the trial Court. However, the circumstances under which the petitioner has been implicated, including the absence of substantive evidence, are relevant considerations at this stage.”

Case Background

The petition, filed under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023, sought anticipatory bail in connection with an FIR registered under Sections 21(b) and 29 of the NDPS Act. The FIR stemmed from the arrest of Arun Kumar, who was allegedly found in possession of 157 grams of heroin. During interrogation, Arun Kumar named the petitioner, Ashu, along with others, as his associates in drug distribution. The petitioner argued that his implication was based solely on the disclosure statement of the co-accused, which lacked corroborative evidence. The State countered, highlighting the petitioner’s involvement in two other NDPS cases.

Key Observations by the Court

Justice Goel emphasized that anticipatory bail pertains to the individual's liberty and that courts must refrain from a meticulous examination of evidence at the investigation stage. The investigation, being dynamic, could bring new evidence or corroborate existing material.
Referring to Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu and subsequent Supreme Court judgments, the Court reiterated that confessional statements recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act are inadmissible as sole evidence for conviction.
The Court clarified that reliance solely on the co-accused’s disclosure statement, without any substantive material, does not justify declining anticipatory bail. “The petitioner was not present at the scene, and no material connects him to the recovered contraband,” observed the Court.
The Court noted that prior allegations against the petitioner, while relevant, cannot independently disqualify him from seeking anticipatory bail in the present FIR. Each case must be evaluated on its merits.

Verdict

Granting anticipatory bail, the High Court held that the petitioner had cooperated with the investigation and fulfilled the conditions of interim protection. Justice Goel remarked, “The prosecution’s case rests solely on an uncorroborated disclosure statement. In the absence of further evidence, denying anticipatory bail would amount to a miscarriage of justice.” The Court clarified that the order does not grant blanket immunity and applies strictly to the FIR in question. It reserved the State’s liberty to seek cancellation of bail if the petitioner violates any prescribed conditions.