P&H: Grants Bail in 9gm Heroin, Custody of more than 8 months, accused Named Only In Co-Accused’s Disclosure statement

punjab-haryana
⚖️ Order Date: 13 May 2026
Headnotes

Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, S.483, Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Ss.21, 27-A, 29, 61, 85 — Bail — Contraband - Non-commercial quantity - Chance recovery of 9 grams heroin from co-accused and petitioner nominated only through disclosure while co-accused was in police custody — No recovery...

(ii) Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, S.23 — Disclosure statement of co-accused recorded in police custody without any consequent recovery or discovery — Credibility and admissibility are in doubt and such statement standing alone, does not justify continued incarceration at the bail stage. (Para 9(ii))

Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, S.483 -- Bail - Person is believed to be innocent until found guilty — Court reiterates that grant of bail is general rule and incarceration is an exception and that bail consideration is not punitive. (Paras 10 & 11)

Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, S.483, Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Ss.21, 27-A, 29 - Bail — Contraband - Quantity - Recovery of 9 grams heroin from co-accused falls within non-commercial quantity and is just above the upper threshold for small quantity and far below commercial quantity,...

 


Facts of the Case

P&H: Grants Bail in 9gm Heroin, Custody of more than 8 months, accused Named Only In Co-Accused’s Disclosure statement 

High Court has granted regular bail to a man implicated in an NDPS case solely on the basis of a co-accused’s disclosure statement recorded in police custody, where no recovery was made from the petitioner. Petition under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), allowed noting the non-commercial nature of the alleged recovery and the petitioner’s prolonged incarceration.

The case stems from a chance recovery in which police intercepted a person carrying 9 grams of heroin. During investigation, the co-accused allegedly named the petitioner. The State opposed the bail plea orally and placed a custody certificate on record, while no formal reply was filed.

The Court recorded multiple factors favouring bail: the petitioner has been in custody for over eight months; there was no recovery from him; the only material against him is a disclosure statement made by a co-accused while in police custody; no discovery or recovery followed from that disclosure; the recovery quantity is non-commercial and...

Login required to open full judgment PDF
Login to Access File