Bare Statement of Co-Accused Without Supporting Material Cannot Alone Connect Accused to NDPS Offence

Aadrikaa Legal Services (ALS)- Law I Litigation I Arbitration

Date: 01.10.2026

Bare Statement of Co-Accused Without Supporting Material Cannot Alone Connect Accused to NDPS Offence

The Gujarat High Court has granted regular bail to an accused alleged by the prosecution to be the “kingpin” behind the transportation of 22 kg of hybrid ganja from Maharashtra to Gujarat, observing that nothing was recovered from his conscious possession and no call detail records (CDR) or other material had been collected during investigation to connect him with the alleged offence, apart from the bare statement of a co-accused.

Justice Hasmukh D. Suthar also took into account that the investigation had concluded, the chargesheet had been filed, nothing remained to be recovered or discovered from the applicant, and there was no likelihood of the trial concluding in the near future.

The Court further relied on the principle of parity, noting that a co-accused who allegedly facilitated arrangements including money and travel plans had already been enlarged on regular bail.

Background of the NDPS Case

• The bail application arose from FIR C.R. No. 11191011260041 of 2026, registered with DCB Police Station, Ahmedabad City, for offences under Sections 8(c), 20(b)(ii)(c), 23(b) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.
• The applicant approached the Gujarat High Court for regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 after completion of investigation and filing of the chargesheet.

Applicant: Nothing Recovered From Conscious Possession

Counsel for the applicant argued that he had been falsely implicated in the case.

It was submitted that:

• the investigation was complete and the chargesheet had been filed;
• nothing had been recovered from the applicant’s conscious possession;
• his implication was based on the statement of a co-accused;
• a co-accused having a similar role had already been granted bail; and
• the applicant did not have a separate past antecedent as alleged by the prosecution.

On these grounds, regular bail was sought subject to appropriate conditions.

State: Applicant Was the “Kingpin” of Drug Trafficking Operation

• The State strongly opposed the application.
• The prosecution alleged that the applicant was the “kingpin” and used to send persons to Thailand to receive consignments of drugs. According to the State, four persons—Umesh, Prashant, Manish and Vishal—had travelled to Thailand at the applicant’s behest.
• The State further alleged that the applicant had been caught red-handed in Maharashtra and that a separate offence had been registered in Mumbai. According to the prosecution, 22 kg of contraband was transported to Ahmedabad, where co-accused Jiya and Chetan were caught in conscious possession of the contraband.
• The prosecution invoked the stringent requirements of Section 37 of the NDPS Act and argued that the applicant had a similar antecedent in Maharashtra. It contended that, if released, there was a possibility of his becoming involved in similar activities again.

Factors Governing Grant of Bail

Before considering the facts, the High Court reiterated the factors ordinarily relevant while deciding a bail application, including:

• the nature and gravity of the accusation and punishment; the material relied upon by the prosecution; possibility of tampering with witnesses; threat to the complainant or witnesses; possibility of securing the accused’s presence at trial; likelihood of absconding; character and circumstances peculiar to the accused; and the larger interests of the public and State.

No Recovery or Discovery Remained After Chargesheet

• On examining the investigation papers, the High Court identified several circumstances favouring consideration of bail.
• The investigation had already concluded and the chargesheet had been filed. The applicant had been in custody since 25 February 2026, and there was nothing further to be recovered or discovered from him.
• The Court also noted that there was no possibility of the trial concluding in the near future.

No Contraband Found in Applicant’s Conscious Possession

• The prosecution’s allegation was that the applicant was the kingpin and that the contraband had been transported from Maharashtra to Gujarat at his behest.
• The High Court, however, considered it significant that nothing had been found in the conscious possession of the applicant.
• In contrast, co-accused Jiya and Chetan were the persons apprehended with conscious possession of 22 kg of hybrid ganja.
• This distinction became important while examining whether the material collected during investigation sufficiently connected the present applicant to the alleged trafficking operation.

No CDR or Other Corroborative Material Collected

• A particularly important observation in the order concerns the evidentiary material linking the applicant with the alleged offence.
• The High Court recorded that “no material or CDR is collected during the investigation.”
• It further observed that, in the absence of conscious possession and any other “inspiring material,” there was nothing connecting the applicant with the alleged offence except the bare statement of the co-accused.
• Thus, notwithstanding the prosecution’s description of the applicant as the kingpin, the Court considered the actual material collected during investigation while deciding whether continued detention was justified at the bail stage.

Section 37 NDPS Act Considered

• The State specifically invoked the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, which imposes stringent conditions on grant of bail in cases involving specified serious NDPS offences.
• The High Court nevertheless considered the absence of conscious possession and lack of corroborative material linking the applicant to the alleged contraband. It also noted that a separate offence had been registered in Maharashtra in relation to the antecedent relied upon by the State.
• The order therefore reflects the Court’s assessment of Section 37 in the context of the evidentiary material actually available against this particular applicant at the post-chargesheet stage.

Parity With Co-Accused Also Favoured Bail

• The Court additionally considered the principle of parity.
• It noted that co-accused Haresh Vaghela, who allegedly facilitated the other accused, including by making arrangements concerning money and travel plans, had already been granted regular bail by a coordinate Bench.

For this proposition, the Court referred to:

Rameshbhai Batubhai Dhabi v. State of Gujarat, 2011 (3) GLR 1999.

• The Court held that the present application deserved consideration on the ground of parity as well.

Prolonged Pre-Trial Detention Cannot Become Pre-Trial Conviction

The Gujarat High Court also relied upon two important Supreme Court decisions:

• Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2012) 1 SCC 40; and
• Gudikanti Narasimhulu & Ors. v. Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, (1978) 1 SCC 240.
• Considering that conclusion of the trial would take time, the Court observed that keeping the accused behind bars in such circumstances would amount to pre-trial conviction.
• The Court invoked the established bail jurisprudence that “bail is a rule and jail is exception”, together with the protection of personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

Final Decision: Regular Bail Granted

• Considering the nature of the allegations and the material available at this stage, the Gujarat High Court found it to be a fit case for exercise of discretion in favour of the applicant.
• The application was accordingly allowed, and Bhuvnesh was ordered to be released on regular bail on executing a personal bond of ₹25,000 with one surety of the like amount, subject to conditions imposed by the Court.
• Among other conditions, the applicant must not misuse his liberty or interfere with the prosecution evidence; must surrender his passport, if any; cannot leave India without prior permission of the Trial Court until conclusion of the trial; must mark his presence at the concerned police station once every month for six months; and must provide his Aadhaar card, email ID and residential details to the Investigating Officer and Court.
• The Court also clarified that the applicant would be released only if he was not required in connection with any other offence. Breach of the bail conditions could result in appropriate action, including cancellation of bail.

Observations Not to Influence Trial

• Importantly, the High Court expressly clarified that its observations concerning the evidence were preliminary in nature and confined to the bail stage.
• The Trial Court has been directed not to be influenced by these observations while deciding the criminal case on merits.
• Therefore, the order constitutes a grant of regular bail, not an acquittal or final determination of the applicant’s criminal liability.

Key Takeaway

• The Gujarat High Court’s decision underscores that even where the prosecution invokes the stringent Section 37 NDPS Act and alleges that an accused is the “kingpin” of a trafficking operation, the Court will examine the specific material connecting that accused with the contraband.
• In the present case, the Court considered the absence of recovery from the applicant’s conscious possession, absence of CDR or other corroborative material, reliance principally on a co-accused’s bare statement, completion of investigation, prolonged custody, likely delay in trial and parity with a co-accused.
• On that cumulative assessment, the Court granted regular bail while leaving all questions concerning guilt and the evidentiary merits of the prosecution case open for trial.

Cases Referred

1. Rameshbhai Batubhai Dhabi v. State of Gujarat, 2011 (3) GLR 1999
2. Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2012) 1 SCC 40
3. Gudikanti Narasimhulu & Ors. v. Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, (1978) 1 SCC 240

Gudikanti Narasimhulu & Ors. v. Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, (1978) 1 SCC 240

Aadrikaa Legal Services is a trusted legal and regulatory support partner providing end-to-end legal solutions to law firms, corporate organizations, and businesses across India. We specialize in paralegal services, litigation support, tax and regulatory matters, delivering reliable, efficient, and result-oriented legal assistance.

Our services include comprehensive paralegal support, drafting and documentation, legal research, case management, litigation handling, and representation support across various judicial and quasi-judicial forums. We also assist in direct and indirect tax matters, customs, GST, corporate regulatory compliance, and legal advisory.

Source: Gujarat High Court

Disclaimer

Handy Download:

Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

Tel: +91-11-4999 2707

www.aadrikaalaw.com

Ravi Shekhar Jha – Advocate, Bar Council of Delhi